Mr. LEVINE. That is the 1 percent that is taken out of the merchant seaman's salary for-I don't know where he got the figure $20. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Right above it he has "Social security, $1." That is the 1 percent, as far as I know. Mr. LEVINE. That is what he meant. I don't know whether the Army card specifically said old-age pension and meant social seurity. Mr. BRADLEY of California. But Mr. Haddock has both social ecurity and old-age pension. He has social security $1, and I would nake it $2. The old-age pension, $20, I can't see any sense in, or ny reason for it. Now I merely bring these things up to show you can't accept, and I don't want the record to show that these figures ubmitted by Mr. Haddock are anywhere near the exact facts at all. would tear them all to pieces to get to the truth of the matter. Mr. LEVINE. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, and I think they were ust put in as some indication. No case is predicated on them and, n fact, I counseled against even putting in the card. Mr. BRADLEY of California. I say to you and Mr. Haddock, do not ake it as something critical, but just something I want to correct the record. Mr. LEVINE. All I urge is that you give consideration to the other ase, which is based on better grounds, in the brief itself, where we go to income tax, and so forth. Mr. BRADLEY of California. That I haven't criticized in any way. 'hank you, Mr. Levine. Mr. LEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BRADLEY of California. I have one or two telegrams I would ead and have entered in the record. Here is one from Houston, 'ex.: Urge you support passage of H. R. 476, seamens war service bill. Merchant amen 6,000 dead and 30,000 injured. Request fair and honest treatment that is bill will provide. JIM BOYLE, Agent, National Maritime Union. Mr. BRADLEY of California. I have here a letter from the purser on he steamship York, which is a letter in favor of this legislation, sent > the Honorable Fred Bradley, and in his reply he states that the etter will be incorporated in our records. So I will turn this copy ver to the recorder also. (The document referred to above is as follows:) PACIFIC TANKERS INC. enator JOSEPH BALL, S. S. "York" (enroute-Japan), Member from Minnesota, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR BALL: In the past I have written you several letters in which I ave urged that you support various bills which were to come up in the future. ly last letter was in support of your own bill against, amongst other things, the losed shop. I received your answer and hereby thank you. This time I would like to urge that you give your active support to H. R. 476 nd to any corresponding bill introduced in the senate. This bill is to provide ertain benefits to members of the merchant marine with war service records. realize that bills dealing with this subject have been introduced at various times, nd that such bills have always been set aside in some manner. I realize that the declining war spirit amongst the public and amongst yourselves makes bills of this sort more difficult to pass. I also realize that the Republican program for trimming the budget, one put forth by Representative Knutson also of Minnesota and one which I definitely favor, will also serve as a stop-check on such a measure as H. R. 476. Nevertheless, I feel that such a bill is the only fair method of treatment for war service merchant marine members. At the time I was to be drafted there were many enlistment programs about Minneapolis. One that seemed the most insistent, the most urgent, was the Maritime Commission and merchant marine enlistment program. Accordingly I joined the merchant marine. I won't bore you with any of my stories of war experiences in and without convoy. It is sufficient to refer you to actual records in which you may find many heroic deeds, and the casualty percentage will speak for itself. At the present time I would like to return to school. I attended the University of Minnesota for 1 year before entering the merchant marine. All my friends that entered the Army and Navy, many never leaving the country, attending schools under V-12 and A-7 programs all during the war, are now back in school under the GI bill of rights. I am, however, unable to return to school for some time as I am still trying to save enough money to finance my education. I have saved every cent I could and under normal conditions would have enough. With the present high cost of everything, including education, higher tuition, books, etc., I am unable to reenter school. I can assure you that I am not an exceptional case. There are many of us young seamen that do not like the merchant marine! We do not want to remain here any longer than we must! We are not drunkards and bums as most people normally consider merchant seamen. I, myself, do not drink or smoke at all. I have also known men that have been severely burned in tanker explosions that are only allowed 60 days in the marine hospitals and then are left to their own help. One can find many cases where we have been and will continue to be pushed about just because we didn't happen to make as lucky a choice of service, and yet did, as many high Army and Navy officials have testified, a vital job. I am sending a copy of this letter to Representative Knutson, of Minnesota, even though I realize that he is not connected with the committee handling H. R. 476. He might have some chance to help and if not can write me why he is against such a measure. One copy will go to Representative Weichel, of Ohio, who I have heard is against the bill. I hope he or his clerks will answer me with his reasons for such a stand. A third copy will go to Representative Bradley of Michigan who I've heard is the new chairman of the committee handling the bill. Perhaps it'll give some support. This way I'll turn into a sort of small pressure lobby group such as those that usually influence our National Government (as labor unions, NAOM, etc.). I hope it does some good. I fully realize that Senator Ball will probably never read this letter himself. I can understand why. I do hope that my sentiment on this subject will be passed to him by the clerk that will answer this letter. Yours truly, DOUGLAS THORNSJO, Purser, Steamship "York." Mr. BRADLEY of California. We have heard approximately all the witnesses who wish to testify as individuals in favor of this legisla tion. There may be opportunity later to hear any other who might arrive, and I certainly will not put anything in the way of their testimony if we can possibly find the time. This morning we have come to the point of beginning to listen to governmental agencies or departments. It will take several days of hearings, I am sure, to cover these. I understand that Dr. Fuller is present, and since he will not be here tomorrow I would like to have him open the meeting this morning. STATEMENT OF JUSTINE K. FULLER, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER MARITIME COMMISSION Dr. FULLER. My name is Justin K. Fuller, Chief Medical Officer of the Maritime Commission, and Director of the Medical Division of the War Shipping Administration during the war from September 1942 on. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Did I understand you to say, Dr. Fuller, that you are now Chief Medical Officer of the Maritime Comnission and were medical officer of the War Shipping Administraion? Dr. FULLER. Yes, sir. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Then you have been quite a long time n this particular billet? Dr. FULLER. Since September 2, 1942. Yes, sir. Mr. BRADLEY of California. May I say, since this is more or less of a Maritime Commission-departmental hearing now, that you are at iberty to call for information on any of your points, on the other entlemen of the Commission who may be here. Dr. FULLER. Hoping to anticipate that, sir, I have requested that he Maritime Commission ask representatives of the Surgeon General nd Public Health Service to be present, and Dr. Anderson and memers of his staff are here this morning and are ready to testify from he standpoint of the Public Health Service as to what this bill, if assed, would mean. Mr. BRADLEY of California. We would like to have them sit up ere at the table where they can give assistance if needed. Dr. FULLER. What I have to say, sir, is more along the line of genalities. I believe I can contribute some general information that ill be of interest to the committee. I am sorry to say that during the ress of the war, and due to lack of skilled personnel, our statistical ports on the work that we did, particularly the examinations of amen, are not what I would like to have them and, as a matter of ict, we are still sorting and punching cards and will not have those cords complete for several months. I think the most significant thing that I can contribute to the hearg, sir, is to report that mechant seamen during the war were divided to two fairly distinct groups. The first group consisted of the old career merchant seamen. In the ginning of the war there were some 55,000 of that class of seamen ailable in the labor force of the merchant marine. There were erhaps two or three times that number, or perhaps even four times at number who were not active in the merchant marine and yet who ad received some training. That group was urged repeatedly and very forcefully during the tire period of the war to return to active duty in the merchant arine. The merchant fleet was growing at a most extraordinary te as new ships were put out. The losses in the early part of the war ere very considerable both of ships and trained personnel, and the Jar Shipping Administration entered upon and maintained during ost of the war a very, very vigorous campaign in magazines, newsapers, and on the air to urge experienced seamen to return to the erchant marine to help man the ships. I have heard and I believe that it was only because of that campaign, nd because of the loyalty of experienced seamen, that ships were kept iling at the rate that they were. In other words, if these seamen ad not responded, many ships would not have sailed, and the conribution of the merchant marine to the successful completion of the ar would not have been as great as it was. Incidentally, among those seamen that returned were many old men, and many disabled men who had been retired by their companies and who were called out of retirement with almost the sure feeling that they would not be able to make more than one or two or three trips and, indeed, that proved to be the case. I have had a very personal contact with many such men through the Insurance Division, which calls upon me for advice from time to time in such cases. That is, to determine whether or not a case should be favorably or unfavorably adjudicated from an insurance point of view. There were many such men who made a very gallant gesture in returning to the merchant marine at the repeated and insistent urgings of their companies and of the Government. The second class of merchant seamen-and numerically a larger class than the first group that I have just described-consisted of young men who were accepted by the Training Division of the War Shipping Administration for training. Those men at first were enlisted in the merchant marine inactive reserve of the Navy. That was the case in 1942 and early in 1943. Then, for reasons that are immaterial so far as those men themselves are concerned, they ceased to be enlisted in the Navy. However, these men, for the most part young men, were subjected to a very rigid medical examination before they were enrolled in the Maritime Service. The basis of that examination was exactly the same as the basis for enlistment in the Navy. Indeed, we took the Navy Bureau of Medicine and Surgery regulations and adapted them to the Maritime Service. Later on, during the war, we used the Selective Service medical standards for accepting these men for enrollment. There were a great number of them enrolled. Something in the neighborhood of 150,000 to 200,000. Those men were young men in high school and college; men between the ages of 16 and 25 for the most part. They were men who were given the privilege by the Selective Service of entering these young men most of whom were acceptable to the draft were given the privi lege by Selective Service of joining one of five services. The Navy, the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, the Army, or the Maritime Serv ice. In that sense, they were volunteers. They were under compulsion to join one of those five services. I think that is an extremely important point. If they had not joined the Maritime Service they would have had to join one of the other four services. Mr. BRADLEY of California. If you don't object, I think it would be well to ask a few questions as you go along rather than try to remember them till you are through. Dr. FULLER. Yes, sir. Mr. BRADLEY of California. You indicated that the draft board gave these young men the opportunity of joining any one of these five services. Dr. FULLER. Selective Service did, and the draft boards-the local draft boards for the most part followed the advice of Selective Serv ice. Yes, sir. There were, I believe, a few draft boards that didn't follow very closely, but the majority of the local boards did give their people that came before them the choice of joining any one of these five. Mr. MALONEY. Doctor, just a minute. Actually, wasn't it a fact that if a man was in the Maritime Service he was not drafted? Dr. FULLER. Yes, sir. Mr. MALONEY. That is the point. Dr. FULLER. Yes, sir. Mr. MALONEY. You are putting the entire thing in a different light, that a man would come into the selective-service board and he would be given a choice. That wasn't actually the case because I was a member of a selective-service board. If a man came in to us and he was in the Maritime Service, we couldn't take him into the Army. Dr. FULLER. Well, insofar as the man himself was concerned, that was the equivalent, or the same thing. Mr. MALONEY. There is a distinction there. The way you put it, you say a man comes in here and he is given the choice as to whether he wants to go in the Maritime Service or selective service. That actually did not happen. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Did it not happen only in your board? Mr. MALONEY. No. I am perfectly familiar with all the boards in Philadelphia, and that did not happen. If a man happened to be in the Maritime Service he was exempt for service in the Army or the Navy, and so forth. Mr. BRADLEY of California. But if a young man came in to a draft board and indicated his desire to go into the merchant service rather than one of the military services; was that not allowed? Mr. MALONEY. That was permissible; yes. Dr. FULLER. That is what I meant to say. Mr. MALONEY. But he was not brought in there and told, "You can go in this service, or you can go in that service." Mr. BRADLEY of California. I understood Dr. Fuller to say that the selective service here in Washington made that arrangement. Mr. MALONEY. It may have been in Washington. Mr. BRADLEY of California. It might not have gotten to the local organizations. Do you know the actual arrangement in Washington here, in the selective service? Dr. FULLER. To the best of my knowledge it was as I described, but Admiral Knight can speak with more authority on it. Mr. MALONEY. There were directives sent out to the individual selective-service boards, and these directives said that if a man was in the Maritime Service he was not to be taken into the military service. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Could you enlighten us on that point, Admiral? STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL TELFAIR KNIGHT, U. S. MARITIME COMMISSION Admiral KNIGHT. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The draft board, or rather the selective service directive that was issued here in Washington after consultation with the Director of Selective Service and the officials of the Maritime Commission, was drawn with the idea of permitting the Maritime Commission through its Training Divison to enroll and take in for training a sufficient number of men to man the vessels. Now, the draft board generally, as Dr. Fuller has said, followed that directive, and if any of the men of draft age came into the maritime 61933-47- -13 |