CONTENTS Page Statement of R. V. Fletcher, general counsel of the Association of American 121 Further statement of Mort. Borow, secretary American Radio Telegraphists' Association, New York, N. Y 122 Statement of Edgar N., Gott, assistant to the president, Consolidated 124 III 7 AMENDING THE MERCHANT MARINE ACT OF 1936 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1937 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, AND Washington, D. C. The committees met, pursuant to adjournment at 10:30 a. m., in the caucus room, Senate Office Building, Senator Royal S. Copeland, chairman of the Commerce Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Copeland (chairman of the Commerce Committee, presiding), Thomas of Utah, Ellender, Vandenberg, and Gibson. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order. Mr. Borow, how long will you need? Mr. BOROW. It will depend on the questioning, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fletcher, we will hear you first, then. STATEMENT OF R. V. FLETCHER, GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN RAILROADS, WASHINGTON, D. C. The CHAIRMAN. Very well, Mr. Fletcher. Mr. FLETCHER. My name is R. V. Fletcher. I am a lawyer and live in Washington and am general counsel of the Association of American Railroads. The association that I represent has in its membership about 97 or 98 percent of the mileage of the class 1 railroads of the United States and the roads of Canada and Mexico as well. I appear here only for the purpose of making a very brief statement with respect to two sections of the act, these being section 44, appearing at pages 31 and 32 of the committee print, and also section 1001, appearing at page 33. The CHAIRMAN. Are you speaking now of the committee print or of the bill? Mr. FLETCHER. I have what I understand to be a copy of S. 3078. The CHAIRMAN. That is right; page 31. Mr. FLETCHER. Pages 31, 32, and 33. I call the attention of the committee to the fact that page 33 defines "maritime employer" as "any person not included in the term 'carrier' in title I of the Railway Labor Act." And if I properly construe the language, that is entirely satisfactory to the railroads. What we are trying to make clear to the committee is the desire of the railroads that their employees subject to the Railway Labor Act shall not inadvertently be included in this bill. Now referring to section 44, which according to my print begins on page 31 and extends over into page 32, there are a number of provi sions there, no doubt of importance to the maritime workers, but which would not seem to be appropriately applicable to the employees of the railroads operating on their car ferries. And I am speaking now particularly of the car ferries which operate across the Great Lakes, in connection with the Grand Trunk Railroad, the Pere Marquette Railroad, and the Ann Arbor Railroad; and I doubt if it was the intention of the draftsmen of the bill or of the committee to include those employees within the scope of this bill, because they are subject to the Railway Labor Act The CHAIRMAN. Are they so indicated now by the Interstate Commerce Commission? Mr. FLETCHER. They are, and by the authorities that enforce the Railway Labor Act and the Mediation Board and all the machinery of the Railway Labor Act. I am going to suggest that there be added to section 44 of this act the following: (d) This section shall not apply to employees on car ferries and transports or lighters subject to the provisions of the Railway Labor Act. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Are there witnesses who have come a long distance to testify? Are there such witnesses? If so, please stand up. Mr. EDGAR N. GOTT. I am from a distance. The CHAIRMAN. Where are you from, please? Mr. GOTT. San Diego, Calif. The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to be heard? Mr. GOTT. I should like to be. The CHAIRMAN. Very well, if you will please wait just a moment. We shall call you after Mr. Borow is heard. Now, is there anyone else who comes from a distance? (No response.) The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Now, Mr. Borow, please proceed with your testimony. FURTHER STATEMENT OF MORT. BOROW, SECRETARY, AMERICAN RADIO TELEGRAPHISTS' ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK, N. Y. Mr. BOROW. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, continuing the presentation of our case, from yesterday, we take up the question of training ships. On this question, let us repeat again that the A. R. T. A. is in firm accord with the position of the New York Maritime Council, as stated by Mr. Joseph Curran, president of the National Maritime Union, to wit, we are in favor of this amendment, but only under certain conditions. A cardinal reason why the maritime unions look upon this amendment as now proposed with profound suspicion is because those shipowners who have been most vigorous in pushing this amendment are the very ones who have ignored the fundamental principles of decency, good seamanship, and enlightened discipline in the past. The CHAIRMAN. May I interrupt you at this point? Mr. BOROW. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You speak as if this bill were the shipowners' bill. This bill came to us from the Maritime Commission. Why are you speaking about the shipowners doing this or that? |