cious. The inspectors under the Department of Commerce always were former merchant captains or engineers. They understood the problems of a merchant ship much more fully than a man without merchant experience ever could.

It is our experience that the inspectors under the Commerce Department always investigated our complaints regarding items of safety aboard ship quickly and completely. The same cannot be said for the Bureau since the Coast Guard took it over. Coast Guard officers always seem to regard any complaints of unlicensed seamen with a jaundiced eye. They take the attitude that we have something up our sleeves.

I see no reason to believe that our complaints would be entertained with any more respect if the inspections are under their permanent jurisdiction.

Here, however, is our biggest beef against the permanent transfer: The Office of the Shipping Commissioners. Some 51 years ago— back in June 1884, to be exact-the Congress created the Office of United States Shipping Commissioners under the Department of Commerce. Congress acted wisely in doing so. There was a crying need for such officials. One of their major functions was the protection of merchant seamen against exploitation by merchant officers or shipping companies. They were to superintend the engagement and discharge of seamen, to act as impartial arbiters between the seamen and the officers, and the seamen and the companies.

That was a new deal for the seamen. It was the first deal he ever got that was not a raw one. By and large the Shipping Commissioners under the Department of Commerce acted impartially. Neither the seamen nor the shipping companies had any major fault to find with their decisions.

Since Coast Guard control and "hearing units" came into being, the seaman has been relegated to his old position. The "courts" set up by the Coast Guard have not been impartial, and they have gone beyond the realm of their authority in cases too numerous to mention. I shall mention one example, however. That is the matter of "insubordination." Scores of seamen have had their certificates revoked or suspended because they talked back to Coast Guard officers. This had nothing to do with their shipboard activities or their own officers. They merely ran afoul of the Coast Guard and were "insubordinate." This practice has continued since the end of the war.

Mr. RICH. Let me ask you a question right there. Do the Coast Guard officers have charge of the conduct of affairs of the seamen? They issued the orders to them to do certain things, did they?

Mr. HAWK. No. Here is what they did: Under the Department of Commerce, the Commissioners would go aboard a ship when a ship was ready to sign articles, that is seamen sign their contract. The Commissioner would be a witness to the contract or the article signed between the seamen and the master of the vessel as an agent of the company. He would O. K. it, put the United States Commissioner's stamp on it. Then, when the vessel would come in after a voyage, the same Shipping Commissioner would come down and sign the crew off, release them from their contract. So, a master of every ship has a log book. He keeps a record in the log if there is any infraction

88368-46- -21

of the law, such as a seaman taking a day off. The law provides that he will be fined 2 days' pay in that event. That will be entered in the master's ship logbook, or any infractions that went on aboard a ship would be recorded.

Well, the men were also issued, under the law, a log slip before the ship came in. If the seaman did not protest being fined or logged, everything would pay off normally, but, if the seaman protested, the Shipping Commissioner would settle the dispute. He would either rule that it was legal or illegal. The man was already punished under a set-up, under arrangement that the law has already set up. Mr. RICH. Was that agreeable to the ship master?

Mr. HAWK. The ship master, he imposed a fine for the offense and entered it in the logbook. When the Coast Guard came into the picture, these young attorneys, most of them were attorneys, they went down aboard the ship to investigate. If they got no complaints, then they would look at the logbook and then they would decide that he should be brought up on charges, although the man was already fined. They decided that he should be punished further. Well, we will set this guy down, we will take a notch out of him. We will suspend his papers for 30 days or 60 days. Now, the master had made no special complaint against that seaman. He was satisfied to carry out what the law had already provided. But, these ambitious Coast Guard investigating officers wanted to build the record, to make a record, and they held these courts.

Every charge that was preferred against the seaman they held a court, and the seaman was tried.

Mr. RICH. Now, they did that without any request from the master of the ship?

Mr. HAWK. From the ship master or from the engineer.

Mr. RICH. Is that customary on all ships that came into port?

Mr. HAWK. That was on every ship that came in. The Coast Guard officers were pulling this stuff. Under the old Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, under the Department of Commerce, it would not go any further unless the master of the vessel thought that the man was not punished enough and that he could say that he had committed a crime that he should be punished further for, then the old Steamboat Inspection Service had the same authority, but they looked at it in a more practical light.

Mr. RICH. In other words, the Department of Commerce said if they wanted to disobey the laws, and the ship master did not want to make any complaints, well let them go ahead and disobey the rules and regulations that were laid down by the master of the ship?

Mr. HAWK. That is right. If the master thought the man should be punished further, then he would report it to the steamboat inspectors, and then they would hold a hearing.

Mr. RICH. In other words, it is easier to disobey the rules and regulations under the Commerce Department than under the Coast Guard? Mr. HAWK. No.

Mr. RICH. I thought that is what you meant.

Mr. HAWK. Definitely not. If a master has a complaint, I mean if he thinks that the man has not been punished enough according to the law, I think we should leave it to the master. After all, the master is sailing with this man. Although he may have made some mistake, it

should be left with him to see whether he should be reported, and that the man should be punished further and be given a trial.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. You said they had the authority to do that but it had not been invoked very often?

Mr. HAWK. That is right. They were not trying to build any record. Mr. WHITTINGTON. With all due deference to you, you have made such a different statement from all the other people that have appeared here, it is rather astounding to me. There were no such charges as you have made made by the other witnesses. They said for the duration of the war they thought it was all right, and there had been no trouble but they wanted to go back in time of peace.

Mr. HAWK. On that point, I would like to say that I have spoken to representatives of all maritime unions and spoken to members of those organizations and they are definitely opposed to the Coast Guard continuing.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I am talking about the people who appeared before the committee. You may proceed.

Mr. HAWK. Under Coast Guard control a seaman's papers--the means of his livelihood-have stood in constant jeopardy. I know of. more cases of seamen's papers being revoked during the period since the war ended than I ever heard of during all the years I was shipping before the war. I will venture to say that more have been revoked in that period than ever were under Commerce from 1884 to the beginning of the war. The Coast Guard has instituted a legal system to blackball seamen throughout the country or industry.

You gentlemen may say that this calls for an investigation of the Coast Guard. I say that the inherent evil will continue to exist no matter how many investigations are carried out. I say that the only to return the Bureau to the Department of Commerce.

The unions for which I speak and other maritime unions have been fighting Coast Guard control ever since the end of the war. I have received communications from most of the maritime unions. I have talked with seamen of all maritime unions. I cannot recall a single instance of a seaman or union which did not concur in our position.

I am empowered to speak for the Sailors' Union of the Pacific, the Seafarers International Union, and the National Organization -of Masters, Mates, and Pilots, and I am sure I know how all seamen stand. Mr. WHITTINGTON. Is that the one Mr. Rich asked you about? Mr. HAWK. Bridges is connected up with the west coast longshore

men.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. You do not speak for anybody on the west coast?

Mr. HAWK. I speak for the AFL seamen.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I am talking about longshoremen.

Mr. HAWK. No. The AFL longshoremen on the west coast, I am speaking for. The International Longshoremen's Association has longshoremen up in Tacoma, Seattle, and a few other ports on the Pacific coast.

Mr. RICH. Is Harry Bridges affiliated with any of the organizations that you are speaking for?

Mr. HAWK. No, sir.

Mr. RICH. You have no connection with anything that Harry Bridges is interested in?

Mr. HAWK. No, sir.

Mr. RICH. Do you belong to any organization that Harry Bridges is interested in?

Mr. HAWK. No, sir.

Mr. RICH. Have you now or at any time affiliated with any communistic organization?

Mr. HAWK. Definitely not.

Merchant seamen are not given to pointing to their deeds during the war, but I wonder how many of you gentlemen recall an item that was on page 1 of most newspapers during 1942. It was the Associated Press "box score of United States ship sinkings," and was run about once a week. Censorship on sinkings was at its height then, and few details of sinkings were given until several months after they occurred.

But there was mounting horror at the way these cold figures mounted each week. Ten ships in a week was a low score for the German subs. The wolf packs played havoc down the Atlantic coast. They picked off the tankers in the Gulf like sitting ducks; the few eyewitness stories that were allowed printed told of the fountains of flame as tankers exploded, or men swimming through a sea of fire.

The

Then, as our convoys began to move, the scene of operations shifted to the North Atlantic. Every survivor was an exposure case. North Atlantic is a bitter cold sea, gentlemen.

But, through it all, the merchant seamen went on shipping. I know well a dozen men who are four times losers-who have had four or more ships shot out from under them. They always went back. But 6,000 merchant seamen won't go back to sea. They are at the bottom of it. Thousands more were maimed.

And so, I should like to ask you gentlemen a question. I should like to ask you whether you think the men who sailed the ships through the war zones should be perpetually shackled to the Coast Guard— which they hate-as a reward for their services to their country.

I don't think these men are asking for very much when they merely request that they be allowed to continue their chosen pursuit under peacetime controls. I think we all want to get back to peacetime. No; I don't think it is very much to ask.

But they won't realize that simple desire, gentlemen, unless you make it possible for them and defeat part 1 of the reorganization plan. It is up to you.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Any further questions by Mr. Mansfield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. No.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Any questions by Mr. Rich?

Mr. RICH. All I want to say publicly for the record is that this is an awful indictment by the leaders of the merchant-marine organization of our Coast Guard.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I would like to say, too, without discounting the work of the merchant marine, that I have always been under the impression that we had no more gallant men than the Coast Guard who went to the rescue of the merchant marine. Your indictment here is entirely different and contrary to the statements that have been made by those who appeared before us.

Mr. HAWK. I am sure that the seamen feel-whether they have brought out and represented their seamen and carried out their wishes

by telling the truth to this committee, I do not know, but I have talked to seamen and officials of other organizations, and I cannot understand why they have not brought out the facts, the facts that have been brought out here, as to how the merchant seamen hate the continued control by the Coast Guard.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I think you have succeeded very well in emphasizing "hate."

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the complaints I have received are not from labor organizations, but from large commercial interests, big operators. They think it is more practical for the Marine Inspection and Navigation to be under the Department than under the Coast Guard.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. That is a fine way to express it, too.

Mr. RICH. Our idea is to be fair to all organizations. I think it is no more than fair that you should refer this statement by the gentleman to the officials of the Coast Guard and let them have an opportunity to have statements made in the record so we can be fair to all people.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. Will you give a copy to the Coast Guard?

Mr. HAWK. I certainly will. The Commandant of the Coast Guard knows very well how the merchant seamen feel with regard to continued control.

Mr. WHITTINGTON. I just asked you about a copy of the statement. Mr. HAWK. Thank you.

Mr. CHURCH. Where you refer to "Coast Guard which you hate,” you mean you dislike the procedures and therefore it is not a matter of fundamental hate, is it? Your idea is that Coast Guard knows you want to get back to this other. Your idea also is that the shippers themselves, employers themselves, want to get back under Commerce. It is not a matter of the term "hate," is it? You do not preach hate, do you?

Mr. HAWK. No, sir.

Mr. CHURCH. But you have a right to come here and point out dislike for procedure.

Mr. HAWK. Maybe "dislike" would be the better word. But the seamen very much dislike this continued control.

Mr. CHURCH. We do not like the term "hate" as preached by some people in this country.

Mr. HAWK. I have no objection to changing the word to "dislike very much."

Mr. WHITTINGTON. The next witness who desires to submit a statement for the record, as I understand it, is Mr. E. C. Hallbeck, legal representative of the National Federation of Post Office Clerks.

STATEMENT OF E. C. HALLBECK, LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF POST OFFICE CLERKS

Mr. HALLBECK. Mr. Chairman, I have a brief statement which I would like to present for the record. I am appearing in opposition to section 3, Reorganization Plan No. 2.

Yesterday I heard Mrs. Meyer make a statement in support of Reorganization Plan No. 2, to which the National Federation of Post Office Clerks and to my knowledge, all employees organizations are very much opposed.