페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

The members of my union have found the Coast Guard officers, with few exceptions, tyrannical and imperious. They are inclined to treat seamen as though they were enlisted personnel of the Coast Guard: .;

Merchant seaman do not like this at all. They are civilians.": They want to be directed by civilians, as civilians.

Mr. Rich. Let me ask you a question right there. Do you feel that the Coast Guard, in dealing with the men that are serving their country in the Coast Guard, are considered in the same light with which you speak about in paragraphs above?

Mr. HAWK. The merchant seamen are civilians. Mr. Rich. In other words, are we treating our Coast Guard, from the statement you have just made, as hooligans and with disregard and disrespect?

Mr. Hawk. I have never been in the merchant Coast Guard. I do not know how they treat them in the service, not being there. I have certainly had dealings with the Coast Guard representing seamen members of my organization. They certainly deal with the seamen in a high-handed manner and not in a manner as they should be dealt with,

Mr. Rich. I infer from your statement here that a great disrespect was paid our people in the Coast Guard, and I am wondering whether that is your thought in making that expression, as you did there in the last two paragraphs of your statement.

Mr. Hawk. I would like to point out to you, Congressman, that during the war, the Coast Guard recruited a lot of young attorneys, and these attorneys did not know what the Coast Guard procedure was, or they had no shipboard experience. · They were not familiar with seamen. They were assigned to investigate happenings aboard ship, and they would come down there like detectives; because they had brass on them they figured they drew a lot of water. They were attorneys all right, but as far as seamen and handling seamen, they did not know the first thing about handling or dealing with seamen, or handling men. These are the men that were in the Coast Guard and these are the men that we are definitely opposed to in continuing this sort of maneuvers in dealing with seamen.

Mr. Rich. Were those attorneys members of the Coast Guard ? • Mr. HAWK. Yes, sir.

Mr. Rich. Go ahead. · Mr. WHITTINGTON. You say they were sent down to investigate, did they have to do with the management of machinery or with the operation of a boat? Mr. Hawk. When a ship came in port.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I just want to know what type of cases they were dealing with. · Mr. HAWK. They wanted to find out about the conduct of seamen aboard ship in relation to the master. They would go to the master and ask him questions about the seamen.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. It involved conduct and involved nothing about the opérations.. to : Mr. HAWK. Seamén resent enforcement of any will beyond that of their officers and the policies arrived at by the rank and file of their unions.

But during the war emergency the merchant seaman recognized the need for the Executive order transferring the Bureau of Marine Inspec

tion and Navigation from the Department of Commerce to the Coast Guard. This came about when the Coast Guard was transferred to the Navy from the Treasury Department for the duration of the war emergency.

The seamen did not complain when the Coast Guard took over the functions of the Bureau, such as issuing seamen's certificates, examinations for licensed officers, and discipline of licensed and unlicensed officers. After all, there was a war on.

Besides, the Executive order establishing this procedure was to end 6 months after the termination of the war. Not 6 months after peace was declared, gentlemen-6 months after hostilities ceased.

During the war and since it ended the seaman has had plenty of cause to regret the Coast Guard control. “Hearing units” were established to try merchant seamen for infractions of discipline. In these "courts” seamen are tried by Coast Guard officers, usually lawyers in uniform who have no sea experience and do not know the practical end of merchant seamanship.

Not a few times, but often, seamen have been tried and sentenced to revocation or suspension of licenses for the smallest infraction of discipline, and often without the presentation or hearing of factual evidence.

These are not baseless beefs, gentlemen. They are facts. I am able to substantiate them through a host of seamen who were persecuted by the Coast Guard officers.

So the war ended. In the days that followed, seamen were buoyed by the expectation that their days under the Coast Guard soon would be ended. When the “duration and 6 months" came to an end, sure enough, the Coast Guard was returned by the Navy to the Treasury under an Executive order.

But the Coast Guard had decided long before that it wanted to retain control of the merchant marine. So, the other Executive order did not come through.

Instead, the Bureau was scheduled to be continued under the Coast Guard in perpetuity.

That was a bitter blow for seamen.

The membership of my union asked me, Why didn't the President hold public hearings on the transfer before he drafted the order? Why didn't you write to him and tell him what a good job the Bureau had done under the Commerce Department? Why didn't you ask him to let us—the men who would be most affected-speak out before he laid down the law?

My answer was a weak one. I had. I had written to President Truman on three occasions asking to be heard.

In my letters to him I had pointed out the fact that the Bureau had operated successfully under the Department of Commerce since 1884. Seamen and shipowners alike were satisfied with it under that Department. I had pointed out to the President that when the transfer was effected all of the old Bureau employees were transferred, too. They were merely supplemented by Coast Guard officers, who superimposed Coast Guard ideas. The real work of the Bureau continued to be done by the old employees.

All of my letters were answered in noncommittal, official, Washington double talk by a Budget Bureau double-talk master. Each time I received an answer from him in reply to one of my letters to the President, I was inspired to new hope. They were in such a bright and cheerful vein. Everything was going to be rosy, they assured me. Oh, yes, thank you for your kind letter; we are glad to entertain your views. But they did not seem to mean anything. Nothing happened.

I would like to submit these letters to be incorporated in the record.

(The letters referred to are as follows:)

JANUARY 11, 1946, The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, White House, Washington, D. C.

MR. PRESIDENT: By virtue of the authority vested in the President of the United States by title I of the First War Powers Act, 1941, approved December 18, 1941, the Honorable Franklin D. Roosevelt, on February 28, 1942, issued Executive Order No. 9083 and thereby transferred the functions of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation and all other functions of the Secretary of Commerce pertaining to shipping including the United States Shipping Commissioner and his office and functions from the Department of Commerce to “the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard to be exercised by him under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of the Navy.” These functions dealt among others with the shipment, discharge, protection, and welfare of merchant seamen. On or about December 29, 1945, you issued your Executive Order No. 9666 directing the return of the Coast Guard to the Treasury Department in accordance with your policy of returning the Nation to peacetime status as expeditiously as possible. Presumably this automatically transferred the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, together with the functions of the Secretary of Commerce pertaining to shipping and the United States Shipping Commissioner and his office and functions from the Commandant's control (as the Commandant no longer functions under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of the Navy) back to the control of the Secretary of Commerce, however, it is respectfully requested that in order to leave no doubt in the matter that an Executive Order be issued by you to that effect. Seafarers International Union of North America, representative of 60,000 merchant seamen, has officially gone on record after meeting of its membership in all ports of the United States as opposing continued control by the Coast Guard of the above-described functions; the desire to have these functions retransferred to their normal previous peacetime status under civilian control and out of military control cannot be too strongly stressed.

Most respectfully yours,

SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA.
John HAWK, Secretary-Treasurer.

ExECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU of THE BUDGET, January 25, 1946. Mr. JoBIN HAWK, Secretary-Treasurer, Seafarers International Union of North America, New York 4, N. Y.

DEAR MR. HAwk: Your letter of January 11, 1946, to the President, relative to the transfer of the functions of the former Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, was referred to this office.

Although the Coast Guard is still responsible for the administration of the BMIN functions to which you refer, its transfer to the Treasury Department has not operated to determine their final allocation in the Government structure. We are glad to have your views on this subject and assure you that they will be given careful consideration.

Very truly yours,
F. J. LAwTON, Administrative Assistant.

tion and Navigation from the Department of Commerce to the Coast Guard. This came about when the Coast Guard was transferred to the Navy from the Treasury Department for the duration of the war emergency. The seamen did not complain when the Coast Guard took over the functions of the Bureau, such as issuing seamen's certificates, examina; tions for licensed officers, and discipline of licensed and unlicensed officers. After all, there was a war on. r Besides, the Executive order establishing this procedure was to end 6 months after the termination of the war. Not 6 months after peace was declared, gentlemen—6 months after hostilities ceased. During the war and since it ended the seaman has had plenty of cause to regret the Coast Guard control. “Hearing units” were established to try merchant seamen for infractions of discipline. In these “courts” seamen are tried by Coast Guard officers, usually lawyers in uniform who have no sea experience and do not know the practical end of merchant seamanship. Not a few times, but often, seamen have been tried and sentenced to revocation or suspension of licenses for the smallest infraction of discipline, and often without the presentation or hearing of factual evidence. - These are not baseless beefs, gentlemen. They are facts. I am able to substantiate them through a host of seamen who were persecuted by the Coast Guard officers. So the war ended. In the days that followed, seamen were buoyed by the expectation that their days under the Coast Guard soon would be ended. When the “duration and 6 months” came to an end, sure enough, the Coast Guard was returned by the Navy to the Treasury under an Executive order. But the Coast Guard had decided long before that it wanted to retain control of the merchant marine. So, the other Executive order did not come through. Instead, the Bureau was scheduled to be continued under the Coast Guard in perpetuity. That was a bitter blow for seamen. The membership of my union asked me, Why didn't the President hold public hearings on the transfer before he drafted the order? Why didn't you write to him and tell him what a good job the Bureau had done under the Commerce Department? Why didn't you ask him to let us—the men who would be most affected—speak out before he laid down the law? My answer was a weak one. I had. I had written to President Truman on three occasions asking to be heard. In my letters to him I had pointed out the fact that the Bureau had operated successfully under the Department of Commerce since 1884. Seamen and shipowners alike were satisfied with it under that Department. I had pointed out to the President that when the transfer was effected all of the old Bureau employees were transferred, too. They were merely supplemented by Coast Guard officers, who superimposed Coast Guard ideas. The real work of the Bureau continued to be done by the old employees.

All of my letters were answered in noncommittal, official, Washington double talk by a Budget Bureau double-talk master. Each time I received an answer from him in reply to one of my letters to the President, I was inspired to new hope. They were in such a bright and cheerful vein. Everything was going to be rosy, they assured me. Oh, yes, thank you for your kind letter; we are glad to entertain your views. But they did not seem to mean anything. Nothing happened.

I would like to submit these letters to be incorporated in the record.

(The letters referred to are as follows:)

JANUARY 11, 1946, The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, White House, Washington, D. C.

MR. PRESIDENT: By virtue of the authority vested in the President of the United States by title I of the First War Powers Act, 1941, approved December 18, 1941, the Honorable Franklin D. Roosevelt, on February 28, 1942, issued Executive Order No. 9083 and thereby transferred the functions of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation and all other functions of the Secretary of Commerce pertaining to shipping including the United States Shipping Commissioner and his office and functions from the Department of Commerce to “the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard to be exercised by him under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of the Navy.” These functions dealt among others with the shipment, discharge, protection, and welfare of merchant seamen. On or about December 29, 1945, you issued your Executive Order No. 9666 directing the return of the Coast Guard to the Treasury Department in accordance with your policy of returning the Nation to peacetime status as expeditiously as possible. Presumably this automatically transferred the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, together with the functions of the Secretary of Commerce pertaining to shipping and the United States Shipping Commissioner and his office and functions from the Commandant's control (as the Commandant no longer functions under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of the Navy) back to the control of the Secretary of Commerce, however, it is respectfully requested that in order to leave no doubt in the matter that an Executive Order be issued by you to that effect. Seafarers International Union of North America, representative of 60,000 merchant seamen, has officially gone on record after meeting of its membership in all ports of the United States as opposing continued control by the Coast Guard of the above-described functions; the desire to have these functions retransferred to their normal previous peacetime status under civilian control and out of military control cannot be too strongly stressed.

Most respectfully yours,

SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA.
John HAwk, Secretary-Treasurer.

ExECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU of THE BUDGET, January 25, 1946. Mr. JoBIN HAWK, Secretary-Treasurer, Seafarers International Union of North America, New York 4, N. Y.

DEAR MR. HAwk: Your letter of January 11, 1946, to the President, relative to the transfer of the functions of the former Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, was referred to this office.

Although the Coast Guard is still responsible for the administration of the BMIN functions to which you refer, its transfer to the Treasury Department has not operated to determine their final allocation in the Government structure. We are glad to have your views on this subject and assure you that they will be given careful consideration.

Very truly yours,
F. J. Lawton, Administrative Assistant.

« 이전계속 »