« PreviousContinue »
Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am not interested in those. We are talking about merchant ships. Don't becloud the issue. Get right down to where we want to get, merchant ships. Where is the difference between those ships?
Mr. McLANE. Between the discipline!
Mr. BRADLEY of California. You made the statement in your testimony and led the committee to believe that there is a difference in Maritime service and merchant service on board ship. Now, I want to know where it is.
Mr. McLANE. I didn't specify, Mr. Chairman, aboard ship.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. We are only talking about aboard ship, we are not talking about Maritime Commission stations, you know that. We are talking about conditions at sea, wartime merchant seamen who went to sea. Let's stick to the issue. In other words, there is none so far as you know; that is a fact, isn't it!
Mr. McLANE. I think we understand each other, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. I think we understand each other perfectly, there is none. I am not trying to get after you, I want facts; I don't want wild theories which beg the issue.
Mr. McLANE. Mr. Chairman, may I say something else? I merely put in the service in the United States Maritime Service because of this public misconception. As I say, the disciplinary action was along a naval pattern and the pay schedule was approximately the same.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am going to arrive at that later. Now tell me where the discipline aboard ship was different in Maritime and merchant service. You spoke about the disciplinary action of the Maritime Commission. Where is it?
Mr. McLANE. The service aboard a Maritime training ship
Mr. BRADLEY of California. We are not speaking of Maritime training ships, we are speaking of merchant ships. This discussion doesn't pertain to Maritime training ships or Maritime training stations. You are asking for certain things, for benefits to wartime merchant seamen. We want to stick to the issues. If you don't know, say so, don't take our time.
Mr. McLANE. Well, I was not quite aware of the extent of your question.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. Then do you know now? If you do give me the answer.
Mr. McLANE. I would say briefly that the discipline aboard a merchant ship as I know of it during wartime was practically the same as during peacetime, except that in an area of attack you were under l'eally Navy control.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. In what way?
Mr. McLANE. As far as the movement of your ship was con. cerned
Mr. BRADLEY of California. Seamen are not concerned in that and we are talking about merchant seamen. You constantly becloud the issues. It isn't a question of movement of ships. You have said "discipline, discipline aboard ship.” Tell me the answer if you know it and if you don't, say so.
Mr. MCLANE. My statement had absolutely no reference at all to discipline aboard a merchant ship.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. I copied down here, you said, "The pattern of naval discipline aboard ship"; the answer is you don't know.
All right, now, let's get down to this question. Where did you say you get the idea an able seaman is the same class as a chief boatswain's mate?
Mr. McLANE. I said that purely from memory. I believe that Representative Bland had made such a comparison.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. You shouldn't make a statement unless you know something about it. How long would it take seaman to get to be an able seaman in the merchant marine?
Mr. McLANE. Approximately 3 years.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. How long would it take a chief boatswain's mate to get to be a chief boatswain's mate in the Navy?
Mr. McLANE. I don't know, sir.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. Probably 20 years, maybe less; it depends on whether there is a war or not. How many chief boatswain's mates would you find on an ordinary merchant ship, do you know that?
Mr. McLANE. No, sir; offhand I don't know.
MR. BRADLEY of California. You will find one. I just want to bring out the absurdity of your statement. An able seaman on a merchant ship might be classed as a coxswain, certainly no higher.
Mr. BROPHY. If he happened to be a top hand.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. Yes. He might be classed as a coxswain. Anybody else who has any different ideas about it would be fooling himself. The coxswain is a third-class petty officer, a squad leader in charge of a boat and he is just four grades below a chief boatswain's mate.
Why do you bring in the question of Army transports all the time in connection with merchant seamen? You know Army transports did not enjoy some of the benefits the merchant ships did, did they?
Mr. McLANE. I don't quite understand that.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. You continually refer to Army transports
Mr. McLANE. That is the service I am most familiar with.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. What connection has any Army transport normally with the merchant seaman question?
Mr. McLANE. I felt that inasmuch as they employed 35,000 merchant seamen, I thought that anything that pertained to the Army Transport Service would be interesting to the committee.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am trying to find out if it is. Did the Army transport personnel enjoy the various bonuses and all that which were paid to merchant seamen ?
Mr. McLANE. I would say that essentially they did. Mr. BRADLEY of California. Do you know? Mr. McLANE. When I was with the Army Transport Service we didn't get overtime pay.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. I asked a simple question and I would like an answer. Don't beat around the bush. Jasked you a simple question.
Mr. McLANE. It all depends
Mr. BRADLEY of California. Wait a minute, get the question, don't confuse the issues. I asked you a simple question. Do you know whether personnel on Army transports enjoyed the same bonus and pay they did on merchant ships? That is just a plain question.
Mr. McLANE. I shall answer it this way, Mr. Chairman
Mr. BRADLEY of California. I want a clear answer, do you know or don't you know?
Mr. MCLANE. I do know.
Mr. McLANE. It depends upon what period of the war you are talking about.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. Was there some period of the war they did not enjoy it and some period of the war when they did
Mr. McLANE. In one phase I can recall they didn't pay overtime, that was one of the benefits.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. You are a hard person to get to stick to questions. You try to confuse issues always and you are making a very poor impression on the committee in doing so.
Mr. McLANE. I am very sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. We are too, we will say so frankly. I didn't mention overtime, overtime is a matter which is not a wartime measure. I asked the question about wartime bonuses. It is a perfectly clear question.
Mr. McLANE. They did receive wartime bonuses.
Mr. McLANE. I am sorry, I misconstrued it, I thought you were referring to other benefits.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. You should simply listen to the questions, my friend. That is the question I asked.
You remarked awhile ago that the principal thing a merchant seaman wanted was to be classified as a veteran, is that the answer!
Mr. McLANE. I said some merchant seamen would be satisfied with receiving recognition as veterans on an official status, I did not say that all of them would be.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. Then you went on to say they wanted hospitalization, education, and veterans' preference.
Mr. McLANE. I said that others had ideas of extension of hospitalization, benefits, compensation benefits, depending upon each individual seaman's viewpoint. Mr. BRADLEY of California. - And you
you mentioned. veterans' preference.
Mr. McLANE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. In other words, what is there that the merchant seamen do not want that is given under the regular GI bill of rights!
Mr. McLANE. May I restate this question in my own mind?
Mr. BRADLEY of California. No, I asked the question: What is there that the merchant marine does not want? I am asking the questions. You are giving the answers. You are not asking me questions.
Mr. McLANE. I am afraid I can't answer that one because each individual seaman's viewpoint is different.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. Well, you don't know. You stated that when you were on board ship you got $50 a week. You compared that to the workingman ashore. Why do you compare it to the workingman ashore rather than somebody at sea ?
Mr. McLANE. Well, possibly because it, incidentally, was a more langerous way of making $50 a week.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. Why do you compare it with the shore corker instead of the Navy man who went to sea or the Army man vho went to sea? We all appreciate that shore wages were way bove wages at sea. Mr. McLANE. I would say in making that remark I was looking it it purely from a personal viewpoint.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. You certainly do not consider we are running this investigation to cover the viewpoints of all merchant eamen, do you? Mr. McLANE. No, sir. Mr. BRADLEY of California. It is the national viewpoint we want. You also stated there was no difference-or words to this effect, 'There is no difficulty in drawing the line as to where pay benefits kould stop.” Would you elucidate on that a little?
Mr. McLANE. I pointed out the merchant marine is the fifth member of the Government forces that have been utilized in our past several wars and that each one of the other services, that is, the four major services, have been accorded veterans' benefits. I feel that the fifth member, the merchant marine, has been neglected.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am not clear as to the four members; will you repeat them?
Mr. McLANE. The Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. There are really only two. The Marine Corps and the Coast Guard were part of the Navy during the war, is that not so, and always have been?
Mr. McLANE. Yes, sir, that is true. I was just making a more complete break-down.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. Make your point clear, then. There are only two other services, then, the Army and the Navy, is that not the situation?
Mr. McLANE. That is true, sir.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. You know there are only two; they have been recognized as the fighting forces during the history of the Nation.
You were going to show us a line of demarkation where this could be stopped, after you leave the present line of demarkation which is the fighting forces. I would be very interested to hear that.
Mr. McLANE. I believe Admiral Mahan in his classic on naval strategy pointed out that a first-class navy is a first-class navy because it has a first-class merchant marine.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am not interested here in the strategy of Admiral Mahan nor do I have time to go into it. I have asked a question and it does not require such a discussion. The question is, wherein would you suggest or believe we could draw the line-in Veterans' benefits if we should leave the armed forces ?
Mr. McLANE. Well, my point there was that the merchant marine should be simply granted the provisions of this current bill we are discussing, 476, and that we should be the last group to be considered
Mr. BRADLEY of California. You have given me no answer to my my question. Do you know the answer or have you any suggestion for the answer as to where you could draw the line?
Mr. McLANE. Would you kindly explain, Mr. Chairman, exactly what you mean by drawing the line?
Mr. BRADLEY of California. Yes. What I mean is that heretofore in general veterans—and these are veterans' benefits, there is no ques. tion about that, whatever you want to call them—have been limited to two classes of people, those who have worn the uniform or have drawn the pay of one of the recognized armed forces, combatant forces of the United States, the Army, or the Navy. Whether right or wrong that has been the general classification.
When we once abandon that classification and get into the civilian forces, which the merchant marine is and was by its own choice, where then do we stop in drawing the line? Do we take the ships at seal Do we take the training stations ashore? Do we then go into the arsenals overseas? They are all civilians. They were in just as much danger, lots of them.
Where do we draw the line? That is the issue. Already we have requests in numbers from the overseas civilian agencies during the war, such as the Red Cross, the YMCA and other agencies, that they should all be included in this same legislation. We are asking for assistance if you can give it to us.
Mr. McLANE. Mr. Chairman, I believe that another witness is prepared to answer that particular question.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. You are not prepared to answer it, very well.
You spoke of there being no—I am not exactly clear what you meant-no able seamen on the ships on which you served. You stated that in reply to a question. Did you mean to say there were no naval gun crews on those ships or what was the implication of that reply?
Mr. McLANE. I don't quite understand the question.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. In reply to a question as to the comparative wages between naval personnel and civilians on the ships on which you served, you replied, as I recall, that you didn't know of any able seamen in the Navy on board those ships. I am simply trying to find out whether you meant that the gun crews were not what you would call able seamen or whether there were no naval gun crews aboard ship.
Mr. McLANE. I believe that was at the part of my testimony, Mr. Chairman
Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am not interested in what part it is, I am asking a simple question. You can answer questions.
Mr. McLANE. I was referring to service in the United States Maritime Service, not in the merchant marine.
Mr. BRADLEY of California. I am not interested in that. I ask you questions and you don't answer them. The question I asked is very clear. Were you referring to the fact that you did not consider the men on gun-crew duty to be able seamen or were you indicating there were no gun crews aboard the ship? That question doesn't require a dictionary in order to understand it.
Mr. McLANE. No, Mr. Chairman; no implication was meant such as that.