Page images
PDF
EPUB

SEAMEN'S BILL OF RIGHTS

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 1947

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE No. 1 OF THE COMMITTEE
ON MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee convened at 10 a. m., Hon. Willis W. Bradley (chairman) presiding.

Present: Messrs. Bradley of California, chairman; Maloney, Tollefson, Jackson, and Havenner.

Also present: Messrs. Seely-Brown, Brophy, and Price.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. The hearing will come to order, gentle

men.

The first witness this morning will be Mr. Doyle, if he is here. Is Mr. Doyle here?

Mr. McLANE. He is not present, sir. He had to return to his business last night.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Where is his business?

Mr. McLANE. In Boston, Mass.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. When will he be down, do you know? Mr. McLANE. I really don't think he will be down again.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I understood last night he was going to be the first witness. Well, I have a list here. That is Mr. Louis M. Doyle we are speaking about; he is not here and he may not be back. The next witness we have listed is Mr. McLane.

Mr. MCLANE. Present, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Will you take the stand, please? I have here only a relatively small list of witnesses. How many of the members of your organization wish to testify? Marvin, do you know how many members of this organization wish to testify?

Mr. COLES. There are six.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Do you have another list of any other witnesses who come on?

Mr. COLES. Yes; we do.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I want to divide this time up so as to give everybody ample time. You may go ahead, Mr. McLane. We will allow you to start with 20 minutes. After I see this witness list I might increase it, I cannot tell. You will be allowed that 20 minutes without interruption and any questioning will come afterward.

STATEMENT OF FRANKLIN MCLANE, APPEARING FOR THE MERCHANT MARINE VETERANS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. McLANE. My name is Franklin McLane, representing the Merchant Marine veterans of the United States. I am a former licensed deck officer in the United States merchant marine and am ensign in the United States maritime service.

61933-47- -4

45

I feel that all of you gentlemen are prepared to meet this problem before us with an open mind

Mr. BRADLEY of California. You feel what?

Mr. McLANE. I feel that all of you gentlemen present are prepared to meet this problem before us with an open mind. Assuming that this bill runs the full legislative course the Members of the House. your colleagues in the Senate and President Truman are all charged with a grave responsibility. What you will do regarding this current legislation will determine to some extent whether or not this country will maintain its world maritime leadership.

If you follow the country's historical pattern our merchant marine will decline and be an also-ran among the world sea powers. Thousands of World War II merchant seamen have already deserted the sea. When the next war comes it will be exceedingly difficult to recruit men for the merchant service. They will naturally prefer the armed forces with their many advantages in service and out of service.

Now, I am going to make a rather startling observation. After a thorough study of parts 1 and 2 of the hearings before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the Seventy-ninth Congress, I came to the conclusion that patriotism was actually put on a payschedule basis. I feel certain that thousands――

Mr. BRADLEY of California. I wish you would repeat that again, I missed it.

Mr. McLANE. And now I am going to make a rather startling observation. After a thorough study of the hearings before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the Seventy-ninth Congress I came to the conclusion that patriotism was actually put on a pay-schedule basis. I feel certain that thousands of other merchant seamen came to the same conclusion.

As far as I know this is the first time in our country's history where patriotism officially was measured by a financial yardstick. Whether they realize it or not those responsible for these mathematical calculations have placed World War II merchant seamen in the same category as the Hessian soldiers employed by the British in the Revolutionary War, that is, mercenaries or military hirelings.

Over 250,000 wartime merchant seamen deeply resent this slur on their patriotism. Imbued by the highest motives and an honest, deep love of their country, many of them volunteered to serve where they could do the United States the most good.

We merchant seamen and the Navy Department know that in every war this country has ever engaged in the merchant marine has been an integral part of the Government forces. No branch of the armed forces could have effectively operated during Work War II without the indispensable help of the merchant marine. Every merchant marine man and those familiar with the facts know that the men in the service did not make fabulous sums.

An unbiased examination of merchant marine pay schedules in a fair comparison with armed pay schedules reveals that in many cases the pay worked out about the same on an annual basis. In some cases the serviceman's pay was greater.

Navy personnel serving with the United States maritime service inade more money than maritime men and officers, in addition to other benefits enjoyed by armed forces men.

It must be remembered that maritime men and officers were operating under a Navy disciplinary pattern and could not actually be thought of as a civilian force, that is, in the United States maritime service.

Also bear in mind that service in the merchant marine was one thing and service in the United States maritime service is quite another thing. There is a widespread public misconception regarding this matter. Opponents of this bill contend that because some merchant seamen received more pay than some enlisted men in the armed forces all merchant marine men should be barred from veteran benefits.

This is as ridiculous as the thought of denying a United States naval captain the benefits of the GI bill of rights simply because he received more pay than an able seaman first class.

Colonel Cory of the United States Army Transport Service testified in the Seventy-ninth congressional hearings before the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee that the average annual pay of representative merchant marine men approximated $2300. Colonel Corey took a representative class of six different types of seamen on which he put this average pay. This included base pay and bonuses.

The Army employed 35,000 merchant seamen in a civilian status during World War II. On a monthly basis he further testified that a $1,200 base pay merchant seaman could make less than $200 a month. This provided for a 30-day month, base pay and overtime pay.

Colonel Cory intimated that he believed that the Army Transport Service pay schedule was somewhat higher in this particular period in some respects than that paid by the shipping industry.

It is interesting to note that ships manned by merchant seamen were operated at less cost than those under Navy control because of fewer personnel. Merchant marine men heartily dispute the contention of a spokesman for one of the two major veterans organizations. This official has said that if merchant seamen are right, rights similar to those given to discharged servicemen will undermine the entire GI bill of rights.

He further charged that other groups active in World War II would then clamor for bencfits.

My organization sincerely doubts that there has been any request for being placed on a national scale from any other groups except the merchant marine organizations. Thousands of merchant marine men have been killed, wounded or made prisoners of war. Thousands, too, like myself have been disabled for life. We have to provide for-in many instances-our own medical care.

Is this fair treatment for patriotic Americans who so loyally served their country in World War II, especially in view of the fact that the United States has already given millions of dollars to foreign governments and presumably is committed to more?

There should be no confusion of thought regarding the premise as to where to draw the line. As far as veterans' benefits are concerned for generations the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and merchant marine have constituted the forces of the United State: in various wars. The line can be cut with the merchant marine as the fifth member of the country's forces receiving just recognition as veterans and receiving some of the benefits now accorded to discharged members of the armed forces.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Have you finished your statement? Mr. McLANE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BRADLEY of California. Mr. Tollefson, do you care to ask any questions? Mr. McLane, you are only charged with 11 minutes of time. I am keeping track of it because of the need of running a schedule.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. Did I understand you correctly at the outset of your statement to say that if the merchant marine seamen do not receive proper consideration by the passage of this bill, in the event of another war men will not enlist in the merchant marine but rather would enlist in other services because they offer more advantages?

Mr. MCLANE. I believe that is correct. I have heard many merchant seamen who served during World War II say that very same thing that if they had known just what was going to happen or what wouldn't happen they would have joined one of the armed forces of this country.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. The reason I ask that is I think you made some reference to the fact that patriotism had been placed upon a financial yardstick, or words to that effect. I didn't quite get the meaning of that. You said further that the merchant marine seamen resent a slur upon their patriotism because patriotism had been put upon the dollar basis.

Mr. MCLANE. Oh, yes. I was referring particularly to the hearings-Parts 1 and 2 in my statement here-in which the monetary benefits accorded to the merchant marine were balanced with those in the armed forces, various pay schedules worked out and the various people who testified said they had seen various tables of comparison. Throughout all of it I gathered the impression that the thing would. in the final analysis, be decided on a purely financial basis.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. The reason I asked those two questions is-wouldn't your first statement reflect or indicate a feeling on the part of the merchant marine seamen themselves that they were putting their own patriotism on a dollar basis, if you say in the event of another war they wouldn't enlist in the merchant marine but rather would go into another service because they would get more benefits? When you say benefits they are financial, aren't they?

Mr. MCLANE. Not essentially. A benefit that we would highly consider would be to have the title nationally and officially of veterans. That would be one of the benefits. We would like people to think of us as veterans, just as they do of men who served in the armed forces. That is one of the things I had in mind.

Of course, there are other things, too; educational benefits and a more liberal hospitalization feature; a much more liberal compensation feature.

We have two organizations that supply, we will say, hospitalization. the United States Marine Hospital. Their procedure has to be liberalized in order to give us the full benefits comparable to those now elljoyed by the armed forces. The same thing is true with the United States Compensation Commission. Some of our men have had very personal experiences with both organizations and we feel both of those organizations need to be liberalized so that we can get more benefits out of them.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. You don't honestly think in the event of another war if the merchant marine needed men that our citizens have so little

patriotism in them that they wouldn't enlist in the merchant marine simply because they could get more dollar benefits out of the armed forces?

Mr. McLANE. Don't misconstrue my meaning. Merchant marine men came to the merchant marine simply because they felt that they could serve their country better that way. They exercised their true democratic rights in selecting the merchant marine rather than the Navy or the Marine Corps, or the Coast Guard. The men in the Navy and the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard didn't like the Army or didn't like the thought of it, so they joined the other services. The merchant marine men exercised the same right.

: Mr. TOLLEFSON. Do you think anyone went into the merchant marine simply because they thought the pay might be better?

Mr. McLANE. I imagine so, some of them probably did.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. On the matter of pay, were you here yesterday when Mr. Peterson was on the stand?

Mr. McLANE. Yes, sir; I was.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. I don't know whether I got this testimony correctly, or not, but as I understand it the average pay of a certain class or classes was in the neighborhood of $2,400 some odd, and deducting the income tax they paid brought it down to about $2,100. Is that figure comparable to the average pay you mentioned of $2,300? Is that the same figure you were referring to?

Mr. McLANE. No; I do not believe that it was on the same basis as Representative Peterson mentioned. This was the pay-schedule basis of the Army Transport Services. The Army Transport people always said that they paid on a par with the regular shipping industry. I don't know just exactly how the Representative arrived at his figures. Mr. TOLLEFSON. You feel, however, that the merchant marine seamen were not paid the fabulous wages that were attributed to them? Mr. McLANE. Generally speaking, no. I can cite from personal experience where-in my own particular case and in many dozens of other cases-where such fabulous pay was never received. I averaged my earnings, for instance, from the north Africa invasion and at the time I was an able-bodied seaman in the Army Transport Service. pay averaged $50 a week, which was certainly inferior to that gotten by war workers ashore, even young people, young boys and young girls. They were making in excess of $50 a week and yet we were out there with the armed forces, risking life and limb; we also gave up a home and in some cases left wives and children that we loved very much; gave up jobs in order to make $50 a week.

The

Personally I was not interested whether I made $10 a week or $50 a week, it didn't make any difference to me because I had a private income to supplement my service income, but there were very few men in the merchant marine who enjoyed such an income.

Mr. TOLLEFSON. What rate in the Navy would you compare with your able-bodied seaman classification?

Mr. MCLANE. I believe the popular match is a chief boatswain mate. Mr. BROPHY. What are you talking about? Why not be honest in making such a statement that an able-bodied seaman in the merchant marine is equal to a chief boatswain mate?

Mr. MCLANE. If I am not in error I believe Reperesentative Bland made such a comparison.

« PreviousContinue »