would be a uniform policy, as prior to that time each company had had separate labor relations agreements with the union or the crew. This Board was composed of Dr. Graham, president of the University of North Carolina; Dr. Steelman, and Captain Macauley. It was set up as a separate board not to represent labor or management, and it was established upon the no-strike pledge mutually accorded by labor and management to further the progress of the war. This Board established certain provisions for scales of detention pay and other items which fell within the general scope of wartime relationships. The War Shipping Administrator became a signatory to that agreement shortly after the War Shipping Administration was established in February of 1942. Mr. MALONEY. Has that agreement terminated or does it run right along even though the war has been declared over and a peace treaty signed? Was that only for the period of the war? Mr. MCCANDLESS. I think the language is such that it is still in existence but it has failed to function since January of 1946. Mr. MALONEY. Why was that? Mr. MCCANDLESS. I think the wording was "until six months after the war." You see, in the early days of the war they used a number of terms "six months after the war," "six months after the emergency," and so on. "Six months after hostilities." Mr. MALONEY. Does that give you the same uniformity as the previous act, the act we are discussing here, that is? Mr. MCCANDLESS. I was just discussing the additional benefits that the civilian personnel on Army Transportation Corps vessels would receive under this bill which they do not presently receive under the United States Employees' Compensation Act. That would be one of them. Then there is another provision in this bill that section 7 of the United States Employees' Compensation Act would not be applicable. Section 7 requires that a person shall not receive double compensation from the Government except for service actually performed, and I think it is also limited to members of the armed services who have been disabled and are receiving compensation in the form of pensions. Then, also, that the double recovery shall not be applicable to social security or other insurance to which the seaman may have made a contribution. For instance, a credit is required against the war-risk insurance issued by the Government, but where the seamen may have made a contribution to the insurance fund then a credit would not be required against that. Mr. BRADLEY. Did you complete your list of additional benefits? You got only as far as two. Mr. MCCANDLESS. Well, I stopped numbering them. Mr. BRADLEY. I see. Mr. MCCANDLESS. There may be others. Mr. BRADLEY. Will you proceed, then, and complete this section. of the Maritime Commission statement before we adjourn? Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes, sir. [Continues reading:] The Bureau of Federal Employees' Compensation, under the bill, would determine the effect of disability and the compensation to be paid. The facilities of the United States Public Health Service are, under existing law, available to the Bureau. The marine hospitals, to which seamen have access under certain circumstances, are administered by the United States Public Health Service, and in many cases the disability in question may have been treated at a United States Public Health Service facility. Mr. BRADLEY. That is as far as it is practical for us to go into the statement. Do you gentlemen have questions you would like to ask in the next 5 minutes? Mr. Havenner? Mr. HAVENNER. No, sir. Mr. MALONEY. No questions. Mr. BRADLEY. We will continue tomorrow morning on this statement. I should like very much to complete this maritime presentation tomorrow. I also wish to continue steadily every day now until we reach the end of these hearings if we can possibly do it. Mr. LEVINE. I would like to amplify one statement. Mr. BRADLEY. Yes. Mr. LEVINE. Maritime War Emergency Board determined bonus depending on dangerousness of the waters. It got less until today there are no bonuses payable anywhere in the world except in two small areas, one around Japan and one right around the Normandy Channel there, where they still pay $2.50 per day in those particular waters for mines and so forth. It is a small amount. I think it is off the northwest part of Europe, the North Sea. The insurance still is in effect, and it is interesting to note that insurance will be paid for the Texas City disaster, for instance, as being a war risk. The authority still exists-we have taken it up-and they will pay insurance there. A meeting will be held shortly———— Mr. BRADLEY. War-risk insurance will pay for the Texas City disaster? Mr. LEVINE. That is right. Mr. BRADLEY. What connection has that with the war? Mr. LEVINE. Ammunition loading aboard the ship and things of that sort. There was ammunition aboard the ship. They will not be paid for the Grande Camp, the French ship, but the High Flyer, an American ship anchored nearby, subsequently blew up, too. There is going to be a meeting shortly, during which the parties signatory to the agreement, unions and employers, will come together with the Government. It is felt the whole program will be wound up. I have spoken to certain Government officials and it is everybody's feeling that some continuation should be made in the case of insurance in the case of mines and so forth which still may be prevalent for a few years more. Mr. BRADLEY. I can agree fully that a ship which struck a mine might well be considered to be under the war-risk insurance, but we must find an end somewhere. We cannot continue to regard every maritime disaster as a war risk. Mr. LEVINE. An end is being found. The whole thing derives out of pure voluntary agreement between labor and management before the war and during the early part of the war. We have these agreements with the employers with regard to bonus payments, with regard to insurance before the Government ever stepped into the pic ture. Mr. BRADLEY. As I understand this question about the Grande Camp, about which you speak Mr. LEVINE. The French ship. Mr. BRADLEY. Which one did you refer to as the American ship? Mr. LEVINE. The High Flyer. Mr. BRADLEY. Will this war-risk insurance be paid by the Federal Government or by the companies involved? Mr. MCCANDLESS. The War Shipping Administration ceased underwriting this war-risk insurance on January 1, 1946. Mr. BRADLEY. That is what I had in mind. Mr. MCCANDLESS. Since that time it has been underwritten by private insurance companies. Mr. BRADLEY. This, then, would be a private affair which is entirely within their rights and limitations. Mr. MCCANDLESS. That is right. Mr. BRADLEY. And it is correct, so far as I can see it. Mr. MCCANDLESS. I might also say that the Texas City disaster would not bring those seamen within the terms of this bill because service under the bill terminates on March 2, 1946. Mr. BRADLEY. Have you anything more to say? Mr. LEVINE. No, I just wanted to bring out that one point. Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you, gentlemen. We will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 12 m., a recess was taken until Tuesday, June 3, 1947, at 10 a. m.) SEAMEN'S BILL OF RIGHTS TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 1947 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1 OF THE COMMITTEE ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES, The subcommittee convened at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment, Hon. Willis W. Bradley (chairman), presiding. Present: Messrs. Bradley (chairman), Burke, Allen, Havenner. Mr. BRADLEY. Gentlemen, the meeting will come to order. Tomorrow morning this committee will meet in room 414 inasmuch as some time ago we agreed that this room would be available for a Coast Guard meeting. Unfortunately I promised to be present at the Coast Guard committee meeting. This meeting will be conducted by Mr. Tollefson, of Washington. I hope we shall finish with the Maritime Commission testimony today. Tomorrow morning we shall start on either the American Legion or the Veterans of Foreign Wars. It begins to look like we might finish taking of testimony on this bill this week. I make these remarks in the hope that I may be corrected if I am wrong. The Army, as I understand it, does not wish to present any witness. The Coast Guard does not wish to present any witness. We are communicating with the Navy. We desire a representative of the Federal Security Agency to testify. Those two agencies, taken in conjunction with the veterans' organizations, I believe, are all the witnesses we have left. If we have any others we should like to have them turn in their names so that we can get them on the schedule. I make this announcement now so that there will be no possible question but what everybody will have warning and will have a chance to bring in witnesses or any names desired before we get to the end of these hearings. We don't want to slight anybody. We want that definitely understood so that no one can say we failed to hear the testimony which either he individually or his organization wished to present. Yesterday when we adjourned, Mr. McCandless was continuing to review the report of the Maritime Commission. Will you continue, Mr. McCandless? STATEMENT OF JAMES V. MCCANDLESS, ASSISTANT TO COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION; DONALD R. HORN; AND PAUL JACKSON, OF THE MARITIME COMMISSIONResumed Mr. MCCANDLESS. Yes, sir. Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, I think I might answer your question of yesterday with regard to the 279 |