Rear Admiral WILEY. They are antagonistic to the merchant marine, and they are antagonistic to the welfare of the sailor. The sailor has always been exploited, you know.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. And he will be unless something is done to correct the situation.

Rear Admiral WILEY. I think we ought to do all we can to see that he is not exploited any more than can be helped.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask Admiral Hamlet a question.

Did we reach any conclusion as to whether or not the hiring hall as proposed in these contracts was violative of the law?

Rear Rdmiral HAMLET. I can perhaps explain that in this way: The hiring hall that Admiral Wiley speaks of, operated by the owners, was in a case on the west coast, Anderson v. Ship Owners Association, 272 U. S. 359, held to be a combination in violation of the Antitrust Act. The decision of the lower court was reversed, and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings in accordance with that opinion. It is my understanding that the case was again tried in the lower court, where the judge held that there was not sufficient evidence.

I believe there has been no decision in the case of hiring halls operated by the unions. I was told about 2 years ago that there was a case before the Federal court in San Francisco, bearing upon its legality, but I have not heard as yet what the decision was.

The CHAIRMAN. The other hall-the owners' hall-has been decided to be illegal?

Rear Admiral HAMLET. It has been decided that it was a combination in violation of the Antitrust Act.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. Do you remember what court declared that?

Rear Admiral HAMLET. It was the Supreme Court of the United States.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. How can it be explained, then, that if the owners realize it is an illegal proposition, the unions, who must realize the same thing, continue this practice? Is it just because it was based originally on the closed-shop idea

Rear Admiral WILEY. I think I might partially explain that, Senator. If you were engaged in a business and this may sound to you as though I were a shipowner, but I think some of them are as stupid as they can be, and they have got to be reformed also-if I were a shipowner, running a private enterprise, and there was no way for me to keep my ships moving or to contract for freight and passengers unless I made an agreement with these unions, I would make them, wouldn't you? Of course, I would try to make the best contract I could, but I would make one.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. If I had been ruled outside the law, and the group that I was contesting with the hardest should come along and I could suggest to them that they also were breaking the law, probably there would be settlements.

Rear Admiral WILEY. I think the shipowners probably feel that they have not got any friends, and they are not engaging in any more contests than they have to.

The CHAIRMAN. They are just giving in.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. But giving in in a rather subtle way in this case.

32437-38-pt. 7

The CHAIRMAN. Article VI, section 1, of an agreement between the Black Diamond Steamship Corporation and the National Maritime Union of America, which appears on page 420 of part 6 of the hearings, reads:

Section 1. While this agreement is in force, the company agrees to secure all the unlicensed personnel required for the manning of its vessels through the hiring halls maintained by the union exclusively, and the union in turn agrees to furnish men who are properly certificated under the law.

So, if the owners were outside the law before, both the owners and the unions are outside now.

Admiral, I should like to ask you a question here, because I want the full answer to appear in the record, if I can get it. I want to read to you a criticism by the union of the Coast Guard as the training agent of the men. I asked Mr. Emerson, the representative of the union, this question, which appears on page 433 of part 6 of the hearings:

Why do you object to having the training done under some system of supervision by the Coast Guard?

Mr. Emerson said:

I do not see why we should drag the Coast Guard into this. They are primarily a lifesaving organization and are also to help commerce in disaster. They have a nice little organization working up and down the coasts.

I take it that in time this would mean that they would have to enlarge to such an extent that they would be in complete turmoil.

Another thing: I would like to see the Coast Guard with its present staff and personnel try to train stewards and cooks for large trans-Atlantic liners. The Coast Guard does not have the facilities.

If we are going to ask the Coast Guard to do this, we might as well set up a separate agency, such as we propose here, where it will not interfere with the Coast Guard or anything else.

We have a Maritime Commission the duty of which is to see that ships are manned by efficient and well-trained crews. Therefore, why should not the Maritime Commission have jurisdiction over that? Why bring in a branch of the service which has all it can do and which is not equipped to do this work?

Would your plan contemplate the training of stewards, and so forth?

Rear Admiral WILEY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Would that create so much turmoil as to destroy the Coast Guard Academy?

Rear Admiral WILEY. Well, Senator, we do not propose to train them at the Coast Guard Academy, to begin with.

Naturally, I do not take this criticism very seriously. If you want me to give you a short answer to it, I would say that I do not see the real foundation for this objection. It is not going to interfere with the Coast Guard's duties.

This is what is going to happen: So far as the Coast Guard is concerned, the Coast Guard is going to expand its personnel somewhat. That goes without saying. I suppose there are people who will object to that. Maybe you will find naval officers who would find a little objection to it, but I just do not happen to be one of them.

After all, the Coast Guard, in time of emergency, merges into the Navy. The Coast Guard and the Navy become one force, so what is the difference? The Coast Guard has its peacetime duties, and

the Navy has its peacetime duties. In time of emergency they perform the same duties. So, I do not see that there is any substance in anything like this.

The CHAIRMAN. The milk in the coconut is this: These men are fearful that if some government agency takes over the training of personnel there will be indoctrination of the students with teachings that may be considered antagonistic to the union ideas. Is that not so?

Rear Admiral WILEY. I suppose so; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. At any rate, that is the impression I have.

Rear Admiral WILEY. Of course, it is not for me to judge of the soundness.

The CHAIRMAN. No; I will admit responsibility for believing that that has much to do with it. I am not criticizing them if they are thoroughly devoted to this idea. If they are, why, of course, they must play their game.

Rear Admiral WILEY. I do not advocate here anything to improve the personnel of the merchant marine as a person opposed to organized labor or to unions; I think they are necessary and very essential. But if it is a question of whether we are going to look out for the sailorman or whether we are going to help the unions to organize, I am for the sailorman. That is my position.

The Congress of the United States has taken the sailor man out of chains, as the saying is, and has given him some very liberal navigation laws, but he still does not know where he stands.

Some of these sailors, I am told-of course, I have not seen itcarry two books, and they use the book that is expedient at the time. It may be an A. F. of L. book or a C. I. O. book. That is a bit of a burden.

I think when the unions have been given certain rights under laws passed by the Congress, if we have got to have an efficient merchant marine, we should take such action as is necessary to have one, so long as we do not violate any of the laws that are passed in the interest of organized labor.

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral, we are deeply obliged to you for giving us these views. Do you have anything further that you wish to say at this time?

Rear Admiral WILEY. I have nothing more to say sir, except that, if you have no objection, I should like to leave another copy of this letter which I wrote. Perhaps Senator Thomas might want it. The CHAIRMAN. Why not have it included in the record? Rear Admiral WILEY. Just as you like, sir.

Here are the changes I have suggested. I should like to make it clear that I am only speaking for myself; I am not speaking for the Commission.

(The copy of letter from Commissioner Wiley to Senator Copeland, together with the chart attached, are to be inserted in the record at this point.)

DECEMBER 27, 1937.

DEAR Mr. CHAIRMAN: While your honorable committee is giving consideration to certain suggested amendments to the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, I have the honor to submit for the consideration of the committee certain views

on the subject of training and the restoration of discipline on board our merchant ships. I consider the personnel question of paramount importance.

* * *

I understand that in neither hearings before your committee nor before the House committee has any opposition to training of our merchant marine personnel developed. On the contrary, it is my understanding that Mr. Joseph Curran, speaking for the unions comprising what is known as the National Maritime Union, is quoted as saying before the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries on December 10, 1937, "We are not against training ships. In fact we are in favor of them under certain conditions." And again, "It is perhaps not wholly untrue that there are some boys and young men employed on ships who have not had the training which we feel they should have." And again, "That a period of sea training for boys interested in the sea as a trade and a profession would benefit the merchant marine we have no doubt. The unions, as entities best fitted to give this training, are quite willing to cooperate with the Government of the United States in establishment of schools."

It appears, therefore, that in the view of the unions for which this gentleman speaks, there is not only no opposition on their part to training recruits or presently engaged merchant marine personnel, but that such training would benefit the merchant marine. That it should be done, and done forthwith, I hope your honorable committee will agree.

Mr. Curran offered strong opposition to the Coast Guard as the agency to be used for the purpose and made eight suggestions as representing the views of the National Maritime Union. The meat of these ideas is to be found in points one and eight. Point one is, "That such training be conducted under the supervision of a board representative of the Maritime Commission and the unions involved." Point eight is, "That all instructors be taken from the ranks of bona fide unions and that they shall be paid a prevailing wage for the highest grade of work for which they are qualified aboard ship." I need hardly tell you that such a set-up as this could not possibly work.

As against such suggestions as the above, I urge that if training is to be authorized, and I strongly recommend it, the Commission should be required to employ the Coast Guard for the purpose and that it (the Coast Guard) should be so designated by the Congress. That the Coast Guard is eminently fitted for this undertaking there can be no doubt. In support of this view I desire to repeat what the Secretary of the Treasury has already said to your committee:

"(a) The Coast Guard has had 147 years' experience in the handling and training of seamen, throughout which period there has been considerable interchange of personnel between the Coast Guard and the merchant marine. "(b) It has a personnel theoretically and practically trained for the duty. Approximately 130 commissioned and warrant officers of the Coast Guard have had service in the merchant marine.

"(c) It has the volume of personnel to insure the necessary rotation of instructors to prevent staleness, and to select, if necessary, by trial and error, instructors temperamentally and otherwise qualified.

"(d) It has many facilities already available.

"(e) The training for the merchant marine should be similar in many respects to the training given officers and men for the Coast Guard peacetime duty of saving and protecting life and property, and enforcing the navigation and other laws on the esa. By reason of these duties, the Coast Guard and the merchant marine are closely associated.

"(f) It has a well established Coast Guard Institute, which provides to officers and enlisted men correspondence courses for all seagoing ratings. These courses are obtained from the International Correspondence Schools and other sources and they can be made available to merchant marine personnel. "(g) It has authority by law to enforce all Federal laws, rules, and regulations on the high seas and navigable waters of the United States (except rivers and small inland waters), and to make the necessary inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests, for that purpose."

The Secretary of the Treasury has also said to your committee that, "As a result of a very careful study in collaboration with the members and staff of the Maritime Commission, the Coast Guard feels that the best plan tending toward the solution of the personnel problem of the merchant marine consists of three interrelated parts, and that the adoption of only a part of the plan would be of doubtful benefit. It contains no compulsory features and merchant

seamen may or may not, as they desire, take advantage of the provisions offered. The three parts of the program are:

"(a) The training of new men for the merchant marine as replacements. "(b) The establishment of an organization, which may be called the United States Maritime Service, to give certain economic and other benefits to qualified personnel of the merchant marine, in order to raise the standards and economic conditions of these men, and to make service in the merchant marine so attractive that our ships will be manned by experienced, reliable men.

"(c) Authority to assign Coast Guard officers to merchant ships, in order to determine the results of and to improve the training, and to coordinate and adapt such training to the requirements of the merchant marine; and to observe the working and living conditions of the personnel; and also, to observe the conduct at fire, lifeboat, and other drills, and to report violations of the laws relating to seamen, customs, immigration, navigation, and shipping, when the vessel is at sea or beyond the territorial limits of the United States."

A bill covering this matter, worked out by the Coast Guard and the Maritime Commission, was submitted with the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury. I am the Commissioner who collaborated with the Coast Guard in the preparation of the course of training and of a bill for you to consider. I urge the passage of this bill. The chairman of the Commission said in the economic survey report made to the Congress on November 10, 1937 that, "The Commission has given consideration to a more comprehensive program affecting the existing personnel. It has considered the establishment of a maritime service, which members of the existing personnel of the American merchant marine could join after having successfully completed a course of training. Under the proposed plan, the enrollment would involve no element of compulsion; men would be encouraged to join by the payment of at least 1 month's pay per year to those enrolled in the service, as well as payment during the period of training." Unfortunately, the report ended with the following: "The Commission is of the opinion that such a program should not be undertaken, however, until there has been further opportunity for study." Some time has passed since then. There has been ample time and opportunity for study of this matter. I am confident that no amount of delay or further study of this matter will bring out any constructive suggestions. It is a substantial and necessary part of the training plan. If not authorized, it is hardly worth while to authorize the training of 500 young men for 1 year in the Coast Guard. Such training alone would be of little value to the merchant marine. Much has been said and published about the lack of discipline on board our merchant ships. It has unquestionably, generally speaking, been bad. It does not help the service to publish to the world a bad state of discipline and do nothing to correct it. I need not tell you that without discipline and high-class service the most modern ships can never capture the trade to which we should be entitled, and certainly they will not constitute an efficient naval auxiliary. My studies of this problem have been based on the sound premise that the Commission must, if we are to have an efficient merchant marine, accomplish in this connection two things: (1) The Commission must see that the seaman comes into his own. He has been too long neglected. (2) That he is properly trained and disciplined, taught his job, and inspired with a sense of duty and loyalty to the job and his ship. The Maritime Commission is fast accomplishing (1). Its efforts are directed toward good minimum wages, proper working conditions, and the best living conditions that can be provided. This includes not only ample, sanitary, and comfortable quarters, but food of the best scrupluous regard for his rights, and such privileges and healthful diversions as are compatible with a proper performance of duty. Photographs of the lay-out of quarters on our recent design of freight ships are enclosed.1 If, as it should be, the Maritime Commission is to be held responsible for the efficiency of the seamen who man our ships, the machinery for accomplishing this should be in its hands. That machinery must be effective. Under present laws the Commission has no authority by which it may improve discipline or skill on board ship. By putting the training plan into operation we shall in time improve the standard of our seamen. If the plan works, and I feel that it will, the training can and should be expanded. In my opinion, however, the restoration of discipline and skill to our ships will be long delayed without authority in the hands of the Maritime Commission to control it, insofar 1 Not printed; on file with the committee.