the system. The members of the association are not opposed to fair and equitable legislation to provide for unemployment compensation for seamen employed on the inland rivers. We agree, however, with the Director of the Railroad Retirement Board, sponsor of H. R. 5446, in excluding from that proposed bill the maritime workers on the inland rivers.

The conditions of employment upon the high seas and the inland rivers are so dissimilar that unemployment compensation for seamen in both could not be fairly imposed or administered under the same provisions for both.

There is regular seasonal unemployment on the upper part of the Mississippi River system for a number of months each year on account of ice. There are also available State unemployment compensation laws for inland river workers which are not applicable to seamen on the high seas.

Many of the ocean carriers receive direct operating subsidies from the Government, whereas none of the river carriers receive such subsidies. There are many other differences in the terms and conditions of employment of seamen on the high seas and seamen on the inland rivers, which would prevent the fair application of a uniform law to both classes of employment.

In addition, since the railroads are the outstanding competitors of the inland river carriers, we see no reason why the Railroad Retirement Board should be the administration of unemployment compensation for employees of the river carriers.

As a constructive suggestion for the solution of this problem we would view favorably the inclusion of inland river seamen under the National Social Security Act, if fair provision would be made to care for seasonal unemployment and casual employment on the rivers. Respectfully submitted.

HERMAN A. BAYLESS,

General Counsel, Mississippi River System Carriers' Association.

BRIEF OF H. C. ROWE & Co.

Hon. SCHUYLER OTIS BLAND,

NEW HAVEN, CONN., November 5, 1941.

Chairman, Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: The United States fisheries have been depressed for many years because this group depends to a greater extent on hand labor than most if not all of its close competitors. Our domestic markets have long been impaired by aggressive competition from other foods which are promoted by great corporate enterprises spending millions of dollars in advertising and propaganda. We are unable to hold our own in this struggle because the production of fish and sea food does not lend itself to large-scale organization or labor-saving techniques which reduce wage payments to a tiny fraction of cost per unit of output. Direct wage payments are and will continue to be our principal element of

expense.

Our difficulty is clearly apparent when fish prices and per capita consumption in the United States are compared with corresponding figures for other countries. Higher prices prevail here because of our higher standard of living, but we must not overlook the fact that these prices are penalizing both the American consumer and national consumption. This matter is of concern because fish and sea food contain mineral and nutritional elements of importance to the Nation.

The present obstruction to greater consumption of fish and fishery products is price. In this price, labor cost is the controlling factor, for it is not possible to meet the struggle for survival by eleminating this human labor and substituting machinery to do our work. In this respect we are like the land farmer and it is important to realize that we shall be eliminated in our fight for a share of the consumer's dollar unless the handicaps under which we operate are understood and given due weight by our Government.

It is well known that certain industries may be crushed by the force of economic circumstance, and we state without qualification that the fishing industries of the United States are not holding their own in the economic arena. If it is felt that the fishermen of our country should be given an even chance to survive, and if it is felt that their products should be available to the people

at a cost permitting their free use on the Nation's table, then we submit we must have your favorable consideration in respect to burdens which add further to the price of the food we produce. Is it not clear that we must have the same type of consideration which is accorded to land farmers? We do not ask for the extensive subsidies and benefits you have granted them, but we do require in some degree the protective measures which it is your privilege to apply for the benefit of weaker groups in the economic system.

H. R. 5446 proposes to establish a system of so-called unemployment insurance for the fishery industry. The honorable chairman to whom this statement is addressed knows that the report of conditions herein is not exaggerated or overdrawn. For this reason we are hopeful that the thousands of operators in our great industry and the tens of thousands of fishermen who work year after year to derive a livelihood from the sea will be spared this additional handicap. If the time ever comes when the Government decides to impose unemployment insurance on land agriculture, we will take our share of the burden with that group. Until then, we respectfully point out that the fishery industries of the United States should be spared for the very same reasons, namely:

1. Our economic survival depends on lowest possible costs, lowest possible prices, and greatest possible consumption.

2. The public interest is identical with these requirements.

3. In providing the Nation with wholesome food, we are performing a vital function and should be encouraged to do this as a public service at minimum cost so as to promote the greatest possible flow of nourishing produce for the Nation's table.

We are an industry of little businessmen and are ill-fitted to endure the burden of forms, reports, payments, routines, and details which this bill provides. We beg to be allowed to continue to produce, unhampered by restrictions which will impair our ability to support ourselves by our own labor. Anything which artificially raises the price of fishery products will reduce their consumption and penalize the consumer. We do not want to look to the Government for subsistence when the national interest requires that we provide for others as well as ourselves. The Nation looks both to the land farmer and the fisherman for the primary production of wealth. If this primary production is penalized and handicapped so that it declines, the true wealth of the Nation is thereby diminished.

For these reasons we respectfully urge and pray that the fisheries of the United States be exempted from so-called unemployment insurance as long as any group in the Nation is so exempt. Being close to nature, we realize that a Nation must produce before it consumes, and over a period of time cannot consume what it has not produced.

Yours truly,

GORDON SWEET.

BRIEF OF SPARKMAN FOSTER. REPRESENTING INDEPENDENT GREAT LAKES VESSEL

DEAR SIR: This brief is submitted on behalf of a diversified group of independent Great Lakes vessel operators engaged in the handling of almost every commodity.

In the field of maritime employment, unemployment compensation insurance is a new and untried experiment. There are many conditions surrounding Great Lakes vessel operation not found elsewhere, and it is believed that the proposal contained in section 12 (m), page 54, for a study by the Railroad Retirement Board of employment on the Great Lakes has considerable merit. Should it be the opinion of your committee that the Great Lakes should be included, it is felt that that unusual conditions pertaining to the Great Lakes should be given consideration in the bill. We, therefore, wish to point out some phases of the bill which should be considered in connection with any study of the Great Lakes.

1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECLARATION OF POLICY

(a) Some of the findings of fact upon which the declaration of policy is based clearly do not fit the actual conditions. It is our opinion that there is not ordinarily a volume of unemployment among licensed and unlicensed personnel on the Great Lakes which lowers the efficiency and impairs the morale of such workers. It is and has been recognized that Great Lakes seamen are highly paid, and even prior to the recent emergency increases the incomes which they have earned for a season of navigation, by and large, was about equal to a year's earnings of seamen on ocean ships. The indictment contained in the bill is not justified by the fact and the language should be entirely deleted or changed to conform to the real conditions.

(b) Not all water transportation is in direct competition with other forms of transportation. This fact the Congress has recognized in the case of Great Lake bulk carriers and it is true to a lesser extent of the tanker and specialty vessels such as self-unloading sand and steel vessels and specially constructed automobile carriers.

2 SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS

(a) The term "employment," being limited to masters, officers, or members of the crew of a vessel, is so restrictive that there will be conflict between this proposed system of unemployment compensation and the laws of the several States. It has been held in Taylor v. McManigal (C. C. A. 6, 89 F. (2d) 583) and Antus v. Inter-Ocean Steamship Company (C. C. A. 6, 108 F. (2d) 185), that persons engaged in the fit-out and lay-up of vessels are not members of crews as that term is used in section 3 (c) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, approved March 4, 1927, as amended. It is believed that the definition in this bill should be sufficiently comprehensive to include the work of a seaman whether it relates to preparation of a ship for operation or actual operation of the ship, or preparation for lay-up.

Amendment.-Section 1 (e), page 4, line 20, should be amended by adding parenthetically after the word "vessel" the following: "including preparation of a vessel for operation or lay-up."

(b) With respect to the definition of the term "compensation," the entire per annum compensation of an employee would be taxable. It is not uncommon for licensed men to earn incomes well in excess of $3,000 per season. Under the Social Security Act, an employee's income is not taxable as to himself or as to his employer in excess of $3,000 per annum. The various State unemployment compensation laws do not impose tax upon employers for income of an employee in excess of $3,000 per year. The Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act limits the tax to the first $300 per month of each employee. There is no reason for a different principle in this bill. For purposes of uniformity and convenience of accounting practices, it is suggested that the rule of the tax imposed by the old-age provisions of the Social Security Act be followed and that compensation of an individual be taxed up to but not in excess of the sum of $3,000 per annum. Amendment.-Section 1 (g), page 6, should be amended by changing the period after the word "Board" in line 10, to a colon and adding: “Provided, however, That the term 'compensation' shall not include any remuneration paid to an employee in excess of $3,000 in any calendar year."

(c) Consideration should be given to modification of the definition of "day of unemployment" contained in section 1 (j), page 7, so as to include any day between April 16 and November 30, both dates inclusive. The period between those dates ordinarily embraces the season of navigation on the Great Lakes.

The definition of "day of unemployment" does not conform to the definitions found in many State unemployment compensation acts. During the navigation season when employees may be laid off because of contraction in the operation of vessels, Great Lakes employees are, in many instances, capable of finding employment and working ashore, this being the general practice during the winter. The definition proposed in the bill makes no reference to the ability of a person to find work, which he may do.

The unemployment laws of most States do not include as a "day of unemployment" temporary work which is remunerative. The definition in this bill should, we believe, be in conformity with laws in this regard.

Amendment.-Embodying the foregoing suggestions in the definition of "day of unemployment" we suggest that the first paragraph of section 1 (j), page 7, be

amended to read as follows: "(j) Subject to the provisions of section 4 of this Act, a 'day of unemployment,' with respect to any employee, means a calendar day which with respect to a Great Lakes employee occurs between April 16 and November 30, both dates inclusive, and on which he is able to work and is available for work and with respect to which (i) no remuneration is payable or accrues, to him, (ii) he has not been able to find work of which he is capable, (iii) he has not secured temporary work for which he has received remuneration in excess of $1 per day or $5 per week, and (iv) he has, in accordance with such regulations as the Board may prescribe, registered at a registration office: Provided, however, That 'subsidiary remuneration,' as hereinafter defined in this subsection, shall not be considered remuneration for the purpose of this section: Provided further, That remuneration for a working day which includes a part of each of two consecutive calendar days shall be deemed to have been earned on the second of such two days, and any individual who takes work for such working day shall not be reason thereof, be deemed not available for work on the first of such calendar days."

(d) In defining "benefit year" in section 1 (k), seasonal employment is not considered. Seasonal employment should be recognized, otherwise Great Lakes seamen will automatically be entitled to unemployment compensation during the winter period although they will have earned a good annual wage during the regular season of navigation.

Amendment.-Section 1 (k) should be amended by changing the period following the word "March," in line 22, to a colon and adding: "Provided, however, That with respect to a Great Lakes employee the term 'benefit year' means the period beginning April 16 and ending November 30: And provided further, That with respect to a Great Lakes employee a registration period beginning in May and ending in June shall be deemed to be in the benefit year ending the succeeding November 30."

(3) SECTION 2. COMMENCEMENT OF BENEFITS

Under most State acts, the tax for payment of unemployment benefits was collected over a period of about 3 years before payment of benefits was commenced. Under H. R. 5446, as drafted, benefits will start at the beginning of the third calendar quarter following effective date of the act. A longer period commensurate with other unemployment compensation laws should be provided so as to create a working fund. In view of the shortage of seamen at this time, there is no necessity for making the benefits available during the present emergency. Should these benefits be made available, it may well result in the detriment to national defense. The problem of crewing ships, already acute because of the emergency, would only be aggravated by making the benefits immediately available to seamen.

Amendment.-The first sentence of section 2 (a), page 10, should be amended to read as follows: "Benefits shall be payable under this Act for unemployment commencing at the beginning of the first calendar quarter immediately following expiration of the existing national emergency proclaimed by the President on May 27, 1941, as extended from time to time."

(4) SECTION 4. DISQUALIFYING CONDITIONS

The Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act disqualifies a person who is discharged or suspended for misconduct relating to his work. There is no such provision in this bill, with the result that a seamen could, on his own volition, without casualty or illness, quit a vessel and in due course obtain unemployment insurance. Furthermore, the seaman would not be required to seek employment in any but his customary occupation although he may be well fitted for other work. The substance of the language embodied in recent amendments to many State unemployment compensation acts is that during any of a fixed number of days beginning with the day on which the administrative agency advises that he was discharged for intoxication, disorderly conduct, insubordination, or quit without good cause attributable to the employer, an employee may not be granted unemployment compensation.

Amendment.-Section 4 (a), page 17, should be amended by inserting a new paragraph after line 19, as follows: "(iv) any of forty days beginning with the day on which the Board advises that he was discharged for intoxication, disor66661-42-14

derly conduct, insubordination, or quit without good cause attributable to the employer and the maximum number of days of unemployment within a benefit year shall be reduced accordingly."

(5) SECTION 6. REPORTS

Under the provisions of section 6, page 26, masters would be required to send shipping articles to the Railroad Retirement Board. During recent years masters have been called upon to make a growing volume of reports. This requirement would be an additional burden. Further reports not having to do with the actual operation of the ship should be discouraged, else masters' efficiency as navigators responsible for life and property will become impaired. It would seem sufficient for the Board's purpose that each employer file with the Board separation reports showing name of seaman, length of service, and monthly, per diem, and total compensation.

Amendment. It is suggested that the first paragraph of section 6, page 26, be revised as follows:

"SEC. 6. Every employer of a master, officer, or member of the crew of a vessel, and every department and agency of the Federal Government which has in its employ or pays compensation to one or more employees, shall furnish to the Board such information, documents, and reports as the Board may prescribe in the administration of this Act; and every such employer, department, and agency shall furnish to the Board copies of such reports, documents, and information in its possession or which may be required by law to be prepared or retained by it as the Board may require in the administration of this Act. The Board may require reports and information required to be furnished it to be furnished under oath. Every person or organization engaged in the operation of facilities for the employment of employees shall furnish to the Board such information and reports on unemployment and placements as the Board may prescribe for the adminis tration of this Act. Upon the termination of the employment of an employee, his employer with respect to such terminated employment shall, pursuant to such regulations as the Board may prescribe, issue to such employee a notation of discharge, unless entries are made with respect to such employment in a continuous discharge book possessed by, or a certificate of discharge issued to, such employee."

Respectfully submitted.

Chairman, Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: For your information and such consideration as you may feel it deserves, I am sending you herewith a self-explanatory communication, and enclosure, which I have received from Mr. Louis Radel of the Andrew Radel Oyster Co., South Norwalk, Conn., concerning bill H. R. 5446.

Sincerely yours,

FRANCIS MALONEY.