are paying $1 an hour, and $1.50 an hour overtime in the longshoremen industry on the 6-hour day. We have given them control of the hiring halls. Their own man makes assignments for the various members in the various organizations. We have given them everything they asked for, practically, yet we have difficulty in assuring ourselves from day to day whether or not some of these things we have done for them might be broken tomorrow. More than 1,000 strikes have taken place from 1933 to the present date, but we have no agency, no means of settling a strike when it takes place with them. It is a matter in their own hands.

Mr. OLIVER. Over the past couple of years you have had comparative freedom from strikes, have you not?

Captain PETERSEN. No. At the end of 1940, the whole steam schooner fleet of the Pacific coast was held up, and it was only settled up just before the first of the year.

Mr. OLIVER. Was there any collective bargaining with the personnel of that fleet?

Captain PETERSEN. Yes; we have collective bargaining with every one of our organizations. There is no question of our desire to cooperate with our men in every way. We know how to cooperate with them, and we have tried to cooperate in every way, on wages, hours, conditions, and everything else.

Mr. OLIVER. But it is your thought that the enactment of this legis. lation will seriously disrupt the comparative peace you have?

Captain PETERSEN. That is just exactly what our people say.
Mr. OLIVER. That is all.

Captain PETERSEN. That the enactment of this legislation now would cause more strikes and more difficulty and we are trying to avoid that as much as we possibly can.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? Is there anything else, gentlemen? The Chair has already received several statements, among them a statement from Admiral Hooper. Others will doubtless come in after the close of the hearings. They will be inserted in the record at this point.

(The statements submitted are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL S. C. HOOPER, REPRESENTING THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

The radio operator on watch on a merchant ship, if a spy, is in a position to do serious harm. Next to the master, he is in the key position in this respect. He is usually alone with his transmitting and receiving apparatus, and unobserved by any officer or other operator. If he wishes, he can signal direct to an enemy ship, plane, or land station. Of course, other ships may hear his signals, but this can be avoided by shifting frequency to one the other ships are not listening on, if he is skillful, one which by prearranged plan his confederate is listening There is no particular difficulty about this.

on.

If serving as an operator in a large convoy, he can easily obtain the position of the convoy, and, knowing the speed and course, can inform a confederate station, through which enemy submarines, bombers, or surface craft can be notified. This will greatly facilitate their ability to place themselves in position to make an attack, as great reliance is placed on ability to proceed on courses which will avoid the natural habitations of the lurking enemy craft. During the World War this was our principal protection, as the ocean is large and we obtained bearings on the enemy submarines when they used radio, and in that way were able to proceed on safer courses. But if the spy operator divulges the convoys' whereabouts, course, and speed, this protection is lost. Also, the spy operator may transmit radiobeacon signals for the enemy to take bearings on, which will guide the enemy to the convoy.

If our fleet, or a portion thereof, were making a secret movement, which is often the case in war, with all possible precautions, such as a route carefully selected as most free from the congestion of merchant ships, and with every effort bent on “blacking out" the fleet at night, and maximum use of camouflage and smoke screens, this would be useless if a merchant ship sighted the fleet and a spy operator on board communicated the information to the enemy.

Also, if a spy operator is on duty on a merchant ship approaching one of our ports, he could circumvent censorship rules prohibiting exchange of radio traffic between enemy countries and our own by copying the radio messages from the enemy country and then delivering them by hand after the ship arrived in port. He can even deliver a false message to his own master, which might be orders for the ship to divert its course toward an enemy ship, to its destruction. This was done several times during the World War, and we have reliable information of this same machinery already being used many times in the present war.

Every naval power is fully alive to the value of using radio in this manner, and it is only common sense to assume that one of the very first places a Communist, Nazi, or Fascist organization will fill with a spy is the radio room of a merchant ship. And as these radiomen are of above average intelligence and imagination, they will do their jobs well. It is hard to detect them. One of the most effective steps toward weeding them out will be to eliminate any operator who belongs to a subversive organization. This will cause the organization to disappear, and without the organization the operator is of greatly reduced value, as he will not have the instructions and information necessary to him to do as good a job, although he will still be able to do a great deal if opportunity

comes.

The history of the present war is full of examples of the effectiveness of the "fifth column" radio operator. The committee will recall that, when the Germans were approaching Norway, radio instructions purporting to be from the Norwegian Government were broadcast from the Norwegian radio stations directing that the German ships be not fired upon, and that the only serious casualty to the German fleet was the sinking of the cruiser Bleucher by a Norwegian manof-war whose operator did not receive the broadcast because he happened to leave his receiver just before the order was broadcast.

In the early part of the Spanish Revolution, announcement of the uprising was transmitted by the government station at Madrid by radiotelegraph to the commanders of the naval vessels, but the message never reached half those commanders. It was received by Communist operators and delivered to their leaders on over half the ships, with the result that the officers were murdered before they were even on guard. Nearly 600 officers were murdered in this way, and the Communists took command of half of the Spanish Navy in a few minutes.

True, codes and ciphers are used, but unless they are in the hands of experts and carefully guarded, they are not sufficient safeguard. It is extremely difficult for a merchant ship master to guard such codes and ciphers. He usually has a safe which an expert spy can easily open when the cabin is not occupied, and he often does not have the training to take the proper precautions. We actually furnished code books to merchant ships several years ago, and several were stolen within 6 months. It is not possible to place naval officers and guards on these ships to look out for this situation, in peacetime.

Admiral Von Spee's squadron was sent to its doom in the Falkland Islands during the World War by a false radio message which was written out in London. I could give hundreds of examples, but the foregoing should suffice.

On a cargo ship with but a single operator, this situation is even more fraught with danger than with a liner having several operators, as the master must rely upon but one man, who may be a spy.

All that is necessary is for the steamship operators, the masters, the Navy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Communications Commission, and loyal operators to keep watch and report any suspicious operators. They are not a large percentage of the total number, and sooner or later will give some evidence of their dislike for our form of government. Their names should be sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and investigated. If the investigation shows that the man is not loyal at heart, his name should be reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the Federal Communications Commission, and the latter should give him a hearing. But if reasonable doubt of his loyalty still exists, he should not be allowed to retain his license. It can usually be proved whether or not he has been a member of a subversive organization. If he has been, this does not mean that he was knowingly disloyal. He

He

may have merely belonged to obtain more pay or better living conditions. may not have realized the organization was Communistic or Nazi. But this can be judged by the Commission.

Certainly, this procedure will weed out the majority, and force the organization to other efforts.

It is urgently necessary that action he commenced as soon as possible to get rid of these spy operators.

Certainly the great majority of operators will welcome such a step.

Some have recommended that the Navy place naval operators on merchant ships, from the Naval Reserve.

It is my belief that the objectives of both H. R. 2662 and H. R. 3364 are the same, insofar as they apply to radio operators, and the Navy strongly favors any legislation which will place loyal operators on all ships of our merchant marine.

STATEMENT OF THE LAKE CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION, CLEVELAND, OHIO, MARCH 6, 1941

This letter is filed with you in accordance with your instructions that persons desiring to file written statements with regard to H. R. 2662 and the amendments proposed by the Maritime Labor Board to title X, Merchant Marine Act, 1936, could do so not later than March 8, 1941.

Generally speaking, our objections to the bill and to the proposed amendments to title X spring from a deep apprehension that their enactment would produce serious disturbances at a time when the Nation needs unprecedented efficiency in its transportation facilities. During January 1941 the steel industry, producing record-breaking quantities of ingot and pig iron, consumed about 6,300,000 tons of Lake Superior iron ore. If this consumption is continued, not to say increased, Great Lakes ships will be required to move during the 1941 season upward of 75,000,000 tons of iron ore, which exceeds by about 10,000,000 tons all previous maximums. With high industrial activity, similar proportionate increases will be required in the movement of limestone and coal. All of these commodities must be carried by a fleet which is definitely limited in number during a seasonal period limited by nature. The fleet cannot be augmented either by acquisition of existing vessels which are not available or by new construction which time will not permit.

H. R. 2662, SECTIONS 101-104

In the last session of Congress your committee considered H. R. 9982, which, in its initial form, undertook to extend the Shipping Commissioners Act of 1872 to Great Lakes vessels. It was shown, we believe, to the satisfaction of your committee that the measure, by delaying ships in port, would have impaired their productive capacity. While it is not clear that sections 101-104, all included, would operate to extend the 1872 act to Great Lakes vessels, the comments of the author before your committee indicated that such was his intention. Having in mind his remarks, we desire to say that if the mode of selecting men provided in the bill is added to the shipment and discharge of men before shipping commissioners, the delay to Great Lakes ships would make it utterly impossible for the fleet to carry the material urgently demanded by industry directly serving the national defense.

H. R. 2662, SECTION 105

With regard to section 105 (p. 6) if there is any need for modification of existing law relating to continuous discharge books and certificates of identification, that need, in our opinion, does not go beyond the adoption of some uniform method of identification. Present laws permit a seaman to elect between a continuous discharge book and a certificate of identification. While in our opinion the former is preferable, it would seem to us to be in the interests of convenience to everyone concerned that men should be identified as seamen by a common document. Existing law provides that no entries except those relating to actual employment shall be made in the discharge book. We believe that it would be unwise to authorize any further entries.

H. R. 2662, SECTION 106

The amendment proposed by section 106 (p. 11) would probably not be applicable to Great Lakes vessels unless the act, which is being amended, were extended to those ships. It seems to us, however, that the proposal should not be extended to Great Lakes ships. To require the master to issue orders predicated upon an exercise of judgment relating to the subversive character of reading matter would be to place upon him a responsibility in excess of that which the average person would be loath to assume. His acts in this respect, if pursued unwisely, even though conscientiously, might well lead his principals into very costly litigation. A master does not have and should not be vested with autocratic powers. In the interests of discipline and safety his powers should continue to be derived from carefully prepared laws enacted by Congress and the traditions of the sea (56 Corpus Juris, pp. 951-952, 1117-1119, with annotations; The Algic Cases, 1937 A. M. C. 1611, 1623-1624).

TITLE III OF H. R. 2662 AND AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY MARITIME LABOR BOARD TO TITLE X, MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936

Both measures contemplate a separate labor board for the maritime industry. Title III would create a new board, and the recommendations of the present Maritime Labor Board contemplate either extension of its life or a successor board. These proposals raise squarely the question whether or not there should be a separate board for the maritime industry. We submit that there is no need for a separate labor board so long as the Department of Labor maintains a satisfactory Conciliation Division and the National Labor Relations Act is a law of general application. No strong or persuasive parallel exists between the handling of labor disputes in the railroad and martime industries because in the former the Railway Labor Act is exclusive of all other laws operating in the field of labor disputes. There would seem to be no more reason for a separate mediation board applicable to maritime employers and seamen than for separate machinery for each different industry.

Suggested section 1005 proposed by the Maritime Labor Board as an amendment to title X indicates the burden which would be imposed upon the industry by a separate board in its inquiries into the details of employer-employee relations.

Among other things, that section would require a maritime employer who is not a party to a written collective agreement to furnish an annual statement to the Board showing (1) the number of his employees in each of the different classes of employment; (2) the hours worked by each class of his employees; (3) the wages paid to each class of his employees; and (4) whether or not he has a written agreement or written memorandum of employment with his own employees.

The need for this section, according to the Maritime Labor Board, is that since maritime employers having collective agreements with employees are obliged to file copies of those agreements with the Board, "those who are not parties to collective agreements should also be obliged to file annual statements with the Board, * * This requirement would be unnecessary and it would serve no useful purpose. Under existing laws the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation fixes the minimum number of officers and crew which a vessel must employ. Masters of Great Lakes vessels under a recently enacted law are required to make complete reports to the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation of all persons employed on such vessels. If an administrative agency desires to procure information with regard to the number of employees on any vessel, that information can be obtained from the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation.

Likewise there is no question about the hours of work on board ship. Congress has provided that officers and seamen in the deck and engine departments shall not be required to work more than 8 hours per day, except in certain few instances as permitted by law. Violations of the law carry penalties. The Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation both administers and enforces the law. With regard to this phase of the employer-employee relationship, information should likewise be available through that Bureau. Thus it will be seen that the proposal of the Maritime Mediation Board in a large measure calls for a duplication of requirements already exacted by law.

Respectfully submitted.

GILBERT R. JOHNSON, Counsel.

STATEMENT OF THE GREAT LAKES TOWING CO.

CLEVELAND, OHIO, March 6, 1941. Re H. R. 2662 and proposed amendments to title X, Merchant Marine Act, 1936. Hon. SCHUYLER O. BLAND,

Chairman, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: After careful review of H. R. 2662 and the proposed amendments by the Maritime Labor Board, to title X, Merchant Marine Act, 1936, we are convinced that this bill, if enacted into law, would work a serious burden and needless hardship upon the marine industry on the Great Lakes.

There is, however, an apparent, if not a real, need for modification and simplification of existing law relating to continuous discharge books, certificates of identification, and certificates of service, which would provide for uniform identification and service of seamen by common document, but such constructive provisions are not found in H. R. 2662.

The measures in H. R. 2662 which deal with the subject of extension of the Maritime Labor Board or a successor contain requirements which, in my opinion, propose to set up duplication of requirements and division of responsibilities in national-labor relations that are unnecessary and serve no useful purpose, and, in view of the recognized principle that responsibility for administration of law should be given to that agency charged with the obligations to carry out the provisions of law, it appears that the economic and sound procedure would be to vest those powers and responsibilities in the Labor Department whose machinery now provides for, and maintains, a Bureau of Conciliation and other component parts capable of efficient administration of the National Labor Relations Act. In view of the foregoing, we protest against favorable report on H. R. 2662. Very truly yours,

CHESTER W. WILLETT, President.

STATEMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION, CINCINNATI, OHIO, MARCH 7, 1941

The Mississippi River System Carriers' Association is composed of a majority of barge lines operating on the Mississippi River system.

H. R. 2662, as stated by its sponsor, Congressman Dirksen, and as stated in the act, deals only with the employment of seamen on the high seas and Great Lakes and does not cover, nor was it apparently intended to cover, seamen employed on the inland rivers.

Section 101 provides for the establishment of an employment center by the shipping commissioner at each port. There are no shipping commissioners on the inland rivers.

Section 102 directs the shipping commissioner to appoint a Maritime Labor Advisory Board at each port. This provision also does not include river carriers. Section 103 refers to section 101.

Section 104 covers the duties of the shipping commissioner.

Section 105 provides for continuous discharge books to be furnished to seamen on all vessels "except vessels employed exclusively in trade on the navigable rivers of the United States."

The subsequent sections of the act also obviously do not cover inland-river carriers, except sections 201 and 202, covering the citizenship of the licensed officers and crews of all vessels documented or undocumented under the laws of the United States, or owned in the United States, which do include inland-river vessels. Our carriers do not object to any reasonable provisions concerning citizenship requirements and prohibiting subversive activities of their licensed officers or crews in the public interest, and especially during this emergency, but it is submitted that, with few exceptions, the members of the crews of river vessels are citizens of the United States, and the members of this association have not encountered any evidence of subversive activities or propaganda on their vessels. Title 3 of the act, section 301, entitled "Mediation of Maritime Labor Disputes," defines the jurisdiction of this title to include water-borne commerce between any State and any foreign country, or on the high seas or Great Lakes, and cannot extend jurisdiction to include the inland rivers, but the term "maritime employer" under the act is described as one engaged in transportation in water-borne commerce or among other classifications engaged in "towboat, barge, lighterage serv