The CHAIRMAN. How do you suggest we may remedy that? I do not mean an utopia, but how can we remedy what you have in mind? How can we make the sailor feel that the sea has all the possibilities of romance of the past; of heroism and sacrifice, yes, but at the same time security? How can we bring that about?

Mr. MCALL. Well, you see, the rules of the game do not favor that in general. It is true, although that has not been remarked upon here sufficiently, in my opinion, that there is a very healthy move toward what we call continuous employment, and by that I mean, although a man goes off articles when he comes into port, yet he immediately secures employment, which is at the rate of one-thirtieth of the month, daily wage, which makes his record in fact continuous, even though in form of law it is not continuous. The conception has not been that sea service is a continuous employment, to be followed like any craft on shore. That is unfortunate. The seaman has no social security in old age. I do not need to tell you that other countries have gone through various solutions of pensions and unemployment relief for seamen. We have never given our seamen what we have given others. People have tried to write such provisions into a bill, but they are not protected.

Then, again, we are suffering under antiquated laws. Some of our laws go back to 1803 and 1811. Let me read from an antiquated law:

In cases where the service of any seaman terminates before the period contemplated in the agreement, by reason of the loss or wreck of the vessel, such seaman shall be entitled to wages for the time of service prior to such termination, but not for any further period. Such seaman shall be considered as a destitute seaman and shall be treated and transported to port of shipment as provided in sections 4577, 4578, and 4579 of the Revised Statutes of the United States.

Here is section 4577 of the Revised Statutes, of February 28, 1803, apparently not changed since then:

It shall be the duty of the consuls and vice consuls, from time to time, to provide for the seamen of the United States, who may be found destitute within their districts, respectively, sufficient subsistence and passage to some port in the United States, in the most reasonable manner, at the expense of the United States, subject to such instructions as the Secretary of State shall give. The seamen shall, if able, be bound to do duty on board the vessels in which they may be transported, according to their several abilities.

So the antiquated laws we have are not of any help.
The CHAIRMAN. Why have we not corrected them?

Mr. McALL. I do not know. I am delighted to find that a draft of amendment along that line is in course of presentation. May I put in the record an interview that appeared in the Journal of Commerce of last Saturday on the effect of these antiquated laws? The CHAIRMAN. We will be delighted to have it.

Mr. MCALL. It is as follows:

LAWS ON SHIPWRECK CALLED ANTIQUATED MCALL HOLDS THAT SEAMEN'S RIGHTS SHOULD BE CLARIFIED

Antiquated law dealing with the rights of seamen on shipwrecked vessels has been brought into sharp relief by the events following the stranding of the President Hoover, in the opinion of R. L. McAll, secretary of the National Group of Seamen's Agencies. In dealing with the particular phase of relations between shipowners and seamen, he said yesterday, the United States has fallen far behind other maritime nations which have definitely established formulas for insuring seamen against loss pending reemployment.

The rights of American seamen in cases of shipwreck, Mr. McAll pointed out, are still governed by laws dating as far back as 1803, and were last amended in 1886. These provide for payment of wages only up to the time when the service terminates at sea, which leads to considerable confusion and injustice, he said. From that time on the sailor is consider a "destitute seaman," and is legally entitled only to transportation as a steerage passenger and may even "be bound to do duty on board the vessel."

COMMISSION PRACTICE

Mr. McAll, who has just completed a comparative study of practices in this respect among all the leading maritime nations, pointed out that the Maritime Commission has recognized the shortcomings of American laws governing shipwrecked seamen and has provided definite benefits where Government-owned or subsidized vessels are concerned. In its general order applying to minimum wages and reasonable working conditions, which became effective last November 1, the Commission prescribed that, in addition to the return of seamen to the port designated in the shipping articles, full wages are to be paid up to the time of arrival at that port.

This, said Mr. McAll, is in line with the general custom of leading maritime nations of Europe. All of these countries, he said, have in effect the provisions of the draft convention regarding the treatment of seamen in cases of loss or foundering of the ship. Under this convention the owner is required to pay each seaman an indemnity against unemployment consisting of wages up to two months, unless reemployment has been secured in the meantime.

LABOR CONVENTION

The convention, which was adopted at a general conference of the International Labor Organization of the League of Nations in Genoa, Italy, in June 1920, has been ratified by 27 nations. Besides the United States, countries which have not ratified it include China, Egypt, Iran, Japan, Lithuania, New Zealand, Portugal, Turkey, and Venezuela. Aside from Japan, none of these nations is considered an important maritime power.

Turning to practices in other countries, Mr. McAll expressed the view that the French plan for dealing with this situation has the most logical reasoning. Under this, he said, seamen continue to be employed until they "cease to use things belonging to the owner." This, he said, should have the effect of ending uncertainty as to when employment in connection with shipwrecked vessel actually terminates. In the case of the President Hoover, such a rule would have amply covered the crew after going ashore in Formosa, he said, and would have obviated the necessity for securing men to volunteer for further service on the vessel.

Some nations follow a practice similar to that established by the Maritime Commission for subsidized and Government-owned ships by paying wages back to the home port. In others, no wages are paid during the return voyage, but, on arrival, the seaman is assured either of reemployment or the payment of wages up to 2 months if employment is not available during that time.

LAW HELD VAGUE

The present American law, which states "In cases where the service of any seaman terminates before the period contemplated in the agreement, by reason of loss or wreck of the vessel, such seaman shall be entitled to wages for the time of service prior to such termination, but not for any further period," Mr. McAll holds, is vague and indefinite as regards the actual point when the seamen cease to be responsible to the ship's master and out of the employ of the owner.

The general subject of the rights of seamen in cases of shipwreck is expected to be investigated by the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries before reaching its conclusions on proposed marine labor legislation. Chairman Schuyler Otis Bland of the committee recently indicated he would go into the question at the earliest opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN. It is perfectly absurd to me that a thing of that kind should occur. For instance, we will say here is a man who is a regular employee of a shipping concern, and yet he completes his voyage and goes ashore and is off the job until he signs articles again. Is that it?

Mr. McALL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is ridiculous.

Mr. MCALL. By the way, for the information of the committee there is more than one occasion when the company that employs him, when off articles, pays more than one-thirtieth so as to make it attractive that he should stay in the continuous employment of the company.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you made a study of the Security Act?
Mr. MCALL. The American Social Security Act?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. For instance, here is a poor devil, the "red cap" in stations, and I have had an opportunity to try to do something for him. There is a lot of inequality in the matter of employment.

Mr. MCALL. Mr. Scharrenberg gave testimony last year that he was trying to introduce an amendment to include seamen. They are not so included now.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is that, Mr. Scharrenberg?

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. It is pending in the Committee on Finance of the Senate now.

The CHAIRMAN. Does it propose any change about the employment of seamen?

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. No. It makes the present old-age security law applicable to seamen. That is now in the Senate Finance Committee, and the other one applying the unemployment law to seamen, is still in the hands of the Social Security Board, but it is on its way. The CHAIRMAN. Has there been any effort made in the past to try to provide for continuous employment of seamen?

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. Yes; haphazardly.

The CHAIRMAN. I am afraid they will run across difficulties.

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. It is a very difficult problem.

Mr. MCALL. With the varying trips of ships, some being tied up for 2 weeks while others are making more or less continuous trips, it does make a difference, but the entire case is that of an attempt at continuous employment. There is an attempt to put in off-shore wages, and the east coast is very largely coming to it. Am I correct in that, Mr. Scharrenberg?

Mr. SCHARRENBERG. Substantially so.

Mr. McALL. I should like to say that the whole matter of social security does not end with old-age insurance. This country has not finished with unemployment insurance because of the difficulty of having Federal and State programs interlock and come together in the proper way. You know how much difficulty there is in our country because of the Federal and State systems.

For instance, take the British seaman, and he pays what is equal to 38 cents a week, and for that he gets an old-age pension; and there is unemployment insurance, and the further advantage of disability in case of accident. The State contributes a certain portion of the expense, and for his 38 cents a week he gets a three-way protection. So the British seamen does not feel that he is insecure in his employ

ment.

But in our country our antiquated laws are a part of the muddle. If I were an American seaman and knew that our laws only protected me, and that in case of shipwreck my term of service would be terminated, and if I wished to be placed on a ship I will be made to work on my way home, you can see what would confront me. The Maritime Commission has issued an order concerning the working condi

tions and has tried to protect with wages until arrival in the home port.

There was a draft convention concerning unemployment indemnity in case of loss or foundering of a ship, at the second session of the general conference of the International Labor Organization of the League of Nations, June 15, 1920. This has since been ratified by 27 nations, including 8 great maritime nations of Europe. Among those which have not, as of January 1938, ratified this convention, are China, Egypt, Irak, Japan, Lithuania, New Zealand, Portugal, Turkey, United States, and Venezuela.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me see that list.

Mr. McALL. Here it is, but I cannot leave this document with you for the responsibility is on me to return it. But the responsibility for paying wages is taken by all of them, though in different ways. Sweden returns the man to his home wherever it may be in the country, with wages paid until he gets over his own doorstep. They do not think so much of his doorstep here.

The CHAIRMAN. I want you to know that we have had the doorstep in mind here. I have had the constant advice of Admiral Hamlet and Captain Joyce in this matter, and we are now considering a proposal about amending the Revised Statutes so as to provide that: "Whenever a vessel of the merchant marine is stranded or wrecked necessitating that the crew be landed on shore or on another vessel, the master shall decide the time when any members of his crew or all of them shall be released from service, obligation, and emoluments, under the shipping articles, and such time may be upon leaving the wrecked or stranded vessel or at any time thereafter: Provided, That nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent any member of the crew of the stranded or wrecked vessel from obtaining complete discharge from the shipping articles and from the provisions of subsection (blank) of this section to enable him to accept employment in a salvage, wrecking, or any other activity."

Upon releasing any member of the crew of a stranded or wrecked vessel from the provisions of the shipping articles under which the vessel was sailing, as provided in subsection (blank) except those released under the proviso of the preceding subsection, the master shall make and sign, with each member of the crew so released, an agreement in writing which shall provide that the seaman signing the same shall receive pay at the same rate as prescribed in the shipping articles, for the period of time actually required to return him to the place of signing the original articles, or for a period that would be required to so return him by the shortest practicable route, whichever of these methods is the shorter in time.

So you see we have had in mind that we would put the American seaman on his doorstep, and he is certainly entitled to be placed there. Mr. MCALL. The same item in the convention is covered by other nations in different ways, which I will just mention for the record: Wages are unpaid while the man is en route but immediately he gets home the company employs him at once or pays him 2 months' wages. I am not saying I favor the one from the other, but both show attention to the problem.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it your view that the United States ought to ratify that convention?

Mr. MCALL. Oh, yes.

The CHAIRMAN. I am afraid we would have some troubles now doing that.

Mr. MCALL. That is a draft recommendation, however. It is not a convention. I beg pardon; I believe I am mistaken about that.

The CHAIRMAN. The hiring hall operated by the union is not provided for in this convention. The convention would leave it to the owners of a ship to select a crew. I suppose even though we ratified the convention we could still make provision that by contract there could be a new relationship between owners and workmen?

Mr. McALL. I think there has been entirely too much just blamingfinding somebody was at fault and simply doing nothing, and excoriating this, that, or the other party in the industry.

I want to say as to antiquated laws, I should like to see the laws not just revised or codified, but rewritten so as to apply to our time, to this day. As to these excerpts I read to you, whereby a man might be made to work his way back on a vessel after doing his best to savehis ship, that is the law. If such a case were ever brought to court I would not like to be on the jury, and if I were I know what I would say. That constitutes one of the innumerable handicaps, to my mind, to the service-well, perhaps that is the wrong word, but it is one of many handicaps which are preventing our seamen's industry from taking its proper place in the economic welfare of our country. I am perfectly certain of that. That is economic insecurity.

With regard to training, I do not wish to say anything. That is not within our province. We only know seamen as individuals. But they talk to us more freely than to others. They talk to us with a feeling that we will not betray their confidence. They come to us and ask for advice. We have been trying to develop reasonable and helpful ways of building up their consciousness in their work, helping them in their unemployment problems. There have been many problems for American seamen to face. In order to aid them we would have to write a pamphlet to guide them. You know how difficult it is to understand them. You saw and listened to seamen, and saw how difficult it was for them to properly express themselves. What would the ordinary seaman know about such things?

It seems to me we have a right to be here and speak about anything pertaining to the welfare of seamen. But I want to exclude anything in regard to the industry. But where the welfare of seamen is interfered with, or there is something that is a factor in it, then we feel perhaps we might have something to say.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McAll, there is no committee that I know of that would not welcome suggestions for a revision of antiquated laws. This committee will be glad to conscientiously study a revision of laws relative to these matters.

Mr. MCALL. Do you think that matter could stand any delay? This is only one little corner of it.

The CHAIRMAN. We do not have to have it this week, perhaps, but it should be carefully considered.

Mr. MCALL. Isn't it the next big job?

The CHAIRMAN. There is no question about that. When you consider that these navigation laws in this book have been continued, many of them written more than a century ago, it is time we looked them over with a view to modernizing them according to present conditions. In defense of this committee I want to say, if it needs.