Mr. RADNER. I take it it is your view, Mr. Ramspeck, that, generally speaking, it was intended by the committee that the Government should pay the cost up to at least 1 year for wages of men captured by the Japanese off American ships in the Orient shortly after the outbreak of the war where no private insurance was available?

Mr. RAMSPECK. I would go further than that. I would say any seaman captured by the enemy through no fault of his own should be taken care of by the Government in the absence of any other method of taking care of him. Of course, if the company has insurance, then I think the War Shipping Administration should see it is reimbursed through the insurance, but the man should not be made to suffer and his family should not be made to suffer.

Mr. RADNER. No; that is right.

Mr. RAMSPECK. This is a war condition and the Government, I think, is responsible for the welfare of these seamen who are risking their lives just like the armed men in the services are.

Mr. ELLISON. Supplementing that, also desiring to follow through the plan, if any assignment of the rights of the operators occur the Government should take them. But the seamen should not wait until the rights are adjudicated.

Mr. RADNER. That is right.

Mr. ELLISON. Because it may take a long time.

Mr. RADNER. That is right.

Mr. HART. That is being done right now?

Mr. RADNER. That is being done right now.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Mr. Radner, may I ask you this: Are you familiar with the provision put in a deficiency appropriation bill in the House and passed by the Senate this year?

[NOTE.-See Senate Amendment No. 65 to H. R. 3598.]

Mr. RADNER. No.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Which undertook to take care of seamen captured by the Japanese?

Mr. RADNER. We have always asked that seamen be exempted from those bills because we had our own provision for insurance. In that way it may be we unnecessarily raised our whole problem, because we did not consider the hiatus there. But I will take a look at that bill. That might have some effect.

But I think that the situation at the present time is one where we would, regardless of the equities, reserve and acquire for the Government as in a sense a consideration for what we do, an assignment of claims which the seamen might have for reimbursement from his company.

That is the position we have taken, and which I think is the only correct procedure we can take in view of the doubt of the law on that particular, unless the committee feels we have discretionary authority to go beyond that.

Take the case of the Grant where 58 men were stranded and left behind. The ship's articles state in the event the vessel is captured the owner will reimburse the seamen for detention of wages. In that case the ship was not captured. I doubt myself if they could recover. Mr. RAMSPECK. Is the War Shipping Administration taking care of those men?

Mr. RADNER. Yes, two of them come back. We are taking care of them temporarily.

Mr. RAMSPECK. What about those who are still prisoners?

Mr. RADNER. I am not familiar with that. I do not think we have worked out an arrangement with the Japanese so we can give our men

money.

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, my attention has been called to the following:

The Japanese captured and interned a number of American seamen whose vessels were in Oriental waters on December 7, pursuant to military or American Government orders. In no case did the owners carry adequate insurance to provide these men with wages while being detained by the Japanese, although in some cases part of the wage claim is covered by insurance.

It is believed that the War Shipping Administration has authority under Public No. 17 to find these seamen are not adequately provided for to the extent that they are not covered by insurance and that the wage claim should be paid by the War Shipping Administration regardless of any possible claim these seamen may have against the shipowners for such uninsured wages. It is believed that this was the intention of Congress in adopting Public No. 17, and that the committee should clarify its intention in this respect, so that a fair and equitable disposition of the claims can be administratively adopted by the War Shipping Administration. Does that statement cover the facts, Mr. Radner?

Mr. RADNER. That is it. That is the question precisely, and that is the question which I think the record is silent on, or at least ambiguous on, and I think that is the issue which I personally am unwilling to resolve in favor of the shipowner unless the history of this bill is clarified or unless the committee advises me I am wrong. But I think in all these matters we have got to take the position when it comes to the Government assuming possible or debatable liabilities there ought to be in the record that intent.

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Radner, in what form do you want the committee to express its views to you? In what form would you expect that advice?

Mr. RADNER. It is quite immaterial. It can be informal. My own feeling was the correct way to do it was that when the committee finally acted on H. R. 3262, which happens to be an amendment of 2 (b) that the committee in its report would merely express its views at that time as to what the meaning of the phrase "not otherwise adequately provided for" was.

Mr. HART. That is rather a novel procedure to seek the committee's advice on legislation.

Mr. RADNER. I do not think so.

Mr. HART. The committee's advice is in the report itself.

Mr. RADNER. The court looks to the committee report.

Mr. HART. Up to the time the bill becomes a law?

Mr. RADNER. No, sir; it looks to the comments on amendments to the law.

Mr. HART. Oh, yes; but I understand you want an expression or comment in the absence of a bill.

Mr. RAMSPECK. No; we have another bill.

Mr. RADNER. There is an amendment to this section pending.

Mr. RAMSPECK. Yes; we have H. R. 3262 pending to this section, and he was suggesting we make a proposal of our intent as to a certain. phrase in the act. We cannot take that bill up this morning. We have only about 5 minutes left.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

Mr. RAMSPECK. Yes, Mr. Bradley.

Mr. BRADLEY. You mentioned several times you think we ought to pay the salaries of these men for 1 year. I think we should pay them as long as they are in detention. It is not the man's fault he is in detention if he is in there for 4 or 5 years. The war may go on 4 or 5 years. I think the poor man is entitled to pay all of the time he is in there.

But I wanted to ask you this question: As I understand it, there are quite a number of different wage scales set up at the present time, depending on the war zones through which vessels pass; I mean a wage scale and a bonus for traveling on tankers, traveling on TNT ships, ships loaded with other explosives in the form of shells, and so on, and in various waters. As a matter of policy as to wages, do you believe that during detention the standard wage should apply, plus a bonus?

Mr. RADNER. NO; I believe you should pay them the standard wage. Mr. BRADLEY. What is that?

Mr. RADNER. About $100 a month.

Mr. BRADLEY. That is the standard basic wage?

Mr. RADNER. It would be $100 a month for an A. B.

Mr. CAPOZZOLI. Mr. Chairman, I am in the dark as to just what is being done for those 56 sailors over in the Philippines in the hands of the Japs. Of course, as you have properly said, we cannot work out an arrangement with the Japanese, but what is being done as to their families?

Mr. RADNER. I think certain of them are paying allotments, if there are any. Are there?

Mr. BALDWIN. There are about 10 allotments.

Mr. RADNER. Mr. Baldwin, who administers these labor claims, advises me there are 10 allotments by these 58 men to their dependents of part of their wages. The operator disputes liability for their wages.

Mr. CAPOZZOLI. In the meanwhile, what happens to the families of these men? Has anybody provided for them if they are unable to work, or is the Government interested in any way as to what is being done?

Mr. RADNER. Those cases have been referred to the Bureau of Public Assistance in the Public Security Agency. I think some relief is being provided.

Mr. CAPOZZOLI. I think there should be something definite in the law if these families cannot be provided for other than by the Bureau of Public Assistance. I think it is the duty of this committee, speaking for myself, to pass such an amendment. I cannot imagine the public letting those families of those 56 men in the hands of the Japanese wander about at the whim of some public-assistance director rather than getting what is coming to them just as any other soldier's dependents.

Mr. SCOTT. I agree with Mr. Capozzoli. I do not think they ought to be on relief.

Mr. CAPOZZOLI. That is very important. I think the committee ought to go into this.

Mr. RAMSPECK. I agree with that. I agree if there is any lack of law to take care of the seamen captured by the enemy, regardless of

whether they were left behind, contracts, or the ship sailed under orders, or whether they were captured otherwise, providing it was not a case where they deserted to the enemy-I do not want to take care of that, and I do not think there is any existence of that, but if they do-if we need any legisalation to take care of those men, then we would like to have you suggest that legislation to the committee so we can consider it in connection with this other bill we will take up later.

Mr. RADNER. We will be glad to do that. We will prepare legislation and suggest it to the committee, if the committee wishes us to do so. Mr. RAMSPECK. Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 the committee proceeded to the consideration of other business.)

WAGES OF INTERNED MERCHANT SEAMEN-DISABILITY AND OTHER BENEFITS TO MERCHANT SEAMEN

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1944

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., the Honorable Schuyler Otis Bland (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the committee will come to order. We have met this morning for the consideration of the bill H. R. 2652, which was introduced by me on May 3 pursuant to a request that came from the Maritime War Emergency Board. On April 28 I received a letter from Commissioner Macauley, Chairman of the Maritime War Emergency Board, as follows:

The Maritime War Emergency Board has unanimously endorsed the attached resolution which directs the chairman to call to the attention of Congress the need for legislation which will provide disability benefits to seamen who have incurred total disability upon expiration of the benefits provided by the decisions of the Board; and the desirability of the Federal Government providing vocational rehabilitation and rehabilitation service, including any service necessary to make such disabled seamen fit to engage in a remunerative occupation.

Prior to enactment, the Board discussed the resolution with the advisory committee and considered the recommendations of the representatives of the operators and of the maritime trade-unions in redrafting the test. The resolution as presently drawn has the concurrence of the advisory committee, which is made up of designated representatives of the parties signatory to the statement of principles.

The matter included with the letter of Chairman Macauley read:

APRIL 23, 1943.

Whereas the seamen of the American merchant marine have manned United States flag vessels engaged in the transportation of planes, guns, tanks, munitions of war, and food to the armed forces and peoples of the United Nations with bravery and distinction; and

Whereas the seamen of the American merchant marine have suffered in the performance of such duties casualties and disabilities proportionately greater than casualties and disabilities suffered by any one branch of the armed forces: and

Whereas certain of these seamen have incurred total disability which prevents them for the remainder of their natural lives from obtaining useful employment in the shipping industry, either afloat or ashore; and

Whereas certain of these seamen have incurred partial disability which prevents the continuance of their former employment in the shipping industry; and

Whereas the insurance benefits specified by the Maritime War Emergency Board in the second seamen's war risk policy are limited to a payment for a period of 75 months for total disability and lesser payments for partial disability; and

Whereas parties signatory to the statement of principles have stated from time to time that provisions should be made for compensation and rehabilitation of such seamen;

95831-44

-3

13