know. But in my opinion, if responsible governmental agencies were set up I think this maritime authority, Federal Maritime Authority, should have charge of the shipping offices, that that is one condition that could be eliminated, and certainly would eliminate a great amount of dissension that exists in the industry today. The CHAIRMAN. Is Mr. Sanders in the room?

Mr. HAAG. No, he is not.

The CHAIRMAN. He was connected with Sea Service. I was going to ask him about it.

Mr. HADDOCK. There are many ways in which this Sea Service you speak of could be operated. I do not mean that a seaman would have to pay tribute to the Sea Service or even go there for employment, but I would say that he could only be employed on a vessel after coming through the Sea Service Bureau, and that if he comes through the Sea Service Bureau from labor organizations or other organizations, they should make it their business to see that none of these discriminatory practices exist.

Mr. CULKIN. Does not that invite a new set of abuses?

Mr. HADDOCK. I do not know of any system other than the one we have in our organization today that eliminates abuses, and that is mainly this, that the workers in the industry elect a committee of unemployed workers who have been on the beach the shortest period of time and charge them with the duties of assigning to vessels under specific rules that have been laid down by the workers themselves. I know of no other manner in which these abuses can largely be eliminated, and still some abuses can creep in. But so far as a committee is concerned, that is going to handle the situation, a committee of workers is going to see that fairer play is given than one worker, or especially one who is not a worker. In our organization in the different locals they elect the men on the committee. They cannot take a job as long as they are on the committee. When it comes close to their turn they resign from the committee and someone else is elected to the committee from the bottom.

Mr. CULKIN. The men longest ashore get the first jobs?

Mr. HADDOCK. No; not necessarily, because a man may be on shore a good deal and still not become in line to get the job.

Mr. CULKIN. Your idea is to base it more or less on length of service? Mr. HADDOCK. That is the first consideration, seniority. That eliminates the practice from officials of union or anyone else. I would not go out and make an assignment of one of our radio operators to a job if I could get out of it at all, because, whether or not favoritism were shown, the crime may become started, and I know positively that a large number of companies have started such propaganda against the unions for no other reason than to break them by stating that the officials are showing favoritism or are taking money for jobs, and so forth.

Now, that may be the answer to the story that has been brought to me by certain members of unions that their officials are crooked. There is no doubt in my mind that there are labor officials who are crooked. Who they are I do not know. We all know that they have existed.

The CHAIRMAN. That exists everywhere, does it not?

Mr. HADDOCK. That will continue to exist. But as long as the members of that organization exercise their true democratic rights that crooked official cannot exist for long.

TOPAIRMAN All right. Anything else?

A Happook. I have nothing else, except I have one observation and like to make that I did not make when our distinguished sertative from New York was questioning me about the hours › operators were employed. I would like to state that the Communications Commission has been given the duty of g recommendations for legislation to Congress. They have vast themselves of this opportunity insofar as legislation for of life at sea is concerned because of the status of the safety at sea treaty. They do not know whether that treaty is gobe passed or not.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that dealt with in that treaty?

Hannock. Some of it. at wil be taken care of, perd miditional legislation.

If the treaty is passed a great amount and the Commission will then recomBut if it does not pass, then they will mend parallel legislation in addition to legislation that is not tained therein.

Mr SILOVICH. As a matter of fact, if it does not pass there is rable of the matter that is contained in the treaty that ought Staten out and made the subject of separate legislation?

Mr Haddock. That is very true, but I am very much afraid that ans the treaty may be being delayed by the interests who do t want such legislation introduced at this time because they fear d be looked upon very favorably by Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. That thing has been pending before the Senate fr any Congresses past; so that criticism would hardly apply, s.se it has been under consideration for many years.

Mr Haddock. Has it ever come out of committee before?
ING CHAIRMAN. I do not know that it has.

Mr HADDOCK. It is my understanding that it has been held in ittee In my opinion it should be either definitely killed or detely passed, so that the public will know exactly what the status et the adequate legislation is.

The CHAIRMAN. I quite agree with you. Is there an N. R. A. ahonty relating to steamships at all, or mercantile merchant

Mr Haddock. Unfortunately, the Government was not strong h to make shipping interests adopt a code.

CHAIRMAN. I am not sure that that criticism would be exactly or not. I do not know what the cause was.

Mr. HADDOCK. I beg your pardon?

¡:@ CHAIRMAN. I say, I am not so sure whether that criticisin 1 be in order. I understood they agreed on a code.

SIROVICH Did the labor unions ever attempt to force the ates and the Government to get together on a code? Was the of abor articulate or inarticulate?

Mr HADDOCK. I will say this, that our organization and every ariti, e organization' spent very valuable time and considerable * in attempting to get that done.

ASTROVICH, What happened to all your work?

HADDOCK. We do not know.

SIKOVICH. Who did you see?

M- Hapbook. I have spoken to several Senators. We spoke to different parties in the N. R. A. that had jurisdiction over this

Mr. SIROVICH. Did you bring this to the attention of General Johnson?

Mr. HADDOCK. Yes, it was brought to the attention of General Johnson.

Mr. SIROVICH. What did he say about it?

Mr. CULKIN. It probably is not fit to repeat.

Mr. HADDOCK. Yes, I will repeat it."The question is being considered." That is about the only thing you can get out of General Johnson.

I would like to state also in connection with that the same thing came up insofar as our particular organization was concerned, with the communications industries. There the same question was being considered, but the industry did go ahead and adopt a code through a subterfuge. They adopted the P. R. A. and amended it to suit themselves, without labor having any voice whatsoever in the amendments; and that P. R. A. is still in effect and no code is being adopted, evidently because labor does want to have some voice in it.

Mr. SIROVICH. What does the "P. R. A." mean?

Mr. HADDOCK. "President's Reemployment Agreement", which calls for a 40-hour week. The communications companies amended that to a 48-hour week except in places where there are three or less employees concerned, and they could be worked any number of hours. Mr. SIROVICH. That applies to you?

Mr. HADDOCK. That does.

Mr. SIROVICH. That is why you have to work 12 to 15 hours?

Mr. HADDOCK. No, that does not apply on ships. The communication companies do not pay wages to radio operators on ships, although they do hire and fire them under the subterfuge of nominating, and that has been one of our greatest handicaps. You go to a steamship company with a view to talking wages and working conditions and they will tell you, "Oh, we have nothing at all to do with that. The radio companies handle all of our radio matters."

We go to the radio companies. "We have nothing to do with it. We merely nominate the men." But when it comes to the question of obtaining a job you have to answer to both of them. When it comes to a question of being fired, you have to answer to both of them. Mr. SIROVICH. Do they have a blacklist against men like yourself and others who are advancing the cause of labor?

Mr. HADDOCK. I do not think there is a blacklist against me, because I have been offered numerous jobs, in fact better jobs than before I quit and became president of this organization. But there are blacklists against certain members of our organization.

Mr. CULKIN. Is that effective?

Mr. HADDOCK. In some instances it is, but there are other instances when it is not, and there are cases of discrimination.

Mr. CULKIN. How many of the groups in the merchant field are organized? Your group is organized, but are the marine engineers organized?

Mr. HADDOCK. It depends upon what you call organized. There is an organization

Mr. ČULKIN. Have you a recognized organization?

Mr. HADDOCK. Every group of seamen is represented by some form of an organization. Taking it right down from the top, we have in the engineers the Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association. We

have in the licensed officers the Masters, Mates, and Pilots. Then weave the United Licensed Officers, which combines both groups. M: CUEKIN How about the steward group? Are they organized? M- HADDOCK They are covered under the International Seamen's

CUIKIN. What about the common seamen?

M: HADDOCK. They are also under the International Seamen's

Mr CUIKIN. Is there open ship on all these lines? Mr HADDOCK. The open ship still exists on the majority of the However, it is fast diminishing at the present time because of tremendous strength that the unions are gaining, particularly on West coast. They are fast eliminating the open ship. However, vopitaon the open ship is as much the fault of the union as it is

Mr RABAUT. Have most of these organizations of men affiliated selves with the American Federation of Labor?

Mr HADDOCK. I think I may be entirely wrong on this--that the International Seamen's Union are affiliated with the American beseration of Labor. I am pretty sure that the Masters, Mates, and and the Marine Officers Beneficial Association is affiliated zh some tie-up. I don't know just what that is, however. Mr RABAUT. How about your organization?

Mr Happock. Our organization is not, as I previously stated. ere are quite a number of organizations that are.

I cd name them. The International Seamen's Union, the Masters, Mates, and Pilots, the Air Line Pilots, the International therhood of Electrical Workers, the Commercial Telegraphers on of North America.

:v all have jurisdiction over our men, and they all got a charter the American Federation of Labor. And they all fight each er for jurisdiction over us. So we merely go ahead and maintain org-nization.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Haag, will you take the stand?

STATEMENT OF ALFRED H. HAAG Continued

7e CHAIRMAN. A statement was made this morning by one of the resses to the effect that in stressing the importance of our mert marine for purposes of national defense it was just propaganda. ropanon is the merchant marine a vital and necessary element e country's national defense?

Mr HAAG Most emphatically, yes.

I reard those remarks this morning. I would like to quote from a I st.-t. publication a very short statement that deals with that subject Te effectively. This is from the publication "War and the Ship :stry," The Economic and Social History of the World War, ~tish series, by a very prominent historian, Mr. C. Ernest Fayle. is the statement:

exaggeraton to say that the possession by Great Britain of a mercantile arker than was required for her own minimum essential needs was use the decisive factor in the war It was this alone that enabled and an, Australian, Indian, and South African troops to take their te western front It was this alone that rendered possible the conof the German colonies and the operations in Gallipoli, Mesopotama,

Palestine, and the Balkins. By British ship one-half the American troops were brought to Europe. Without the assistance of British ships the European Allies could neither have supplied their armies with matériel of war nor fed their people nor obtained the requisite fuel for their railways, ships, and essential industries. Whether we look at the magnitude of the achievement or at the appalling waste involved in the diversion from productive to destructive activities, there is no more significant fact in the history of the war.

Mr. SIROVICH. If it were not for the British merchant marine, in the Napoleonic wars England would have been wiped out. It was the British merchant marine that placed the embargo upon everything that came out of France and destroyed Napoleon.

Mr. HAAG. That, according to my knowledge of history, is correct. I would also like to refer to how unsound and uneconomic a national policy it would be for the Navy to build and maintain ships solely for use as naval auxiliaries. What I mean by that is, it was stated here this morning that if the Navy needs merchant ships, let them build and pay for such ships.

The Navy, in order to have the proper auxiliaries during a national emergency, must have a certain number of various kinds of merchant vessels. It would be a very uneconomical national policy for this country to have the Navy build such vessels only to be used during a war, which may never come.

Therefore, the sound economic policy is to build such vessels during times of tranquillity, and serve peace-time needs; and should a war come, divert them to where they can serve their country best, with a trained personnel ready and available to the Navy, without which the Navy cannot operate effectively.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it not the use of the merchant marine of the Allies and of our enemies that enabled us to get our troops across in the World War?

Mr. HAAG. That is absolutely so.

The CHAIRMAN. A statement was made when the 1928 bill was under consideration before the committee, which I believe is absolutely a fact. It was stated:

In the World War we were fortunate enough to have left with us a large number of German ships. And of the 2,000,000 soldiers that went to France, a million went in the ships of our Allies, 500,000 went in interned ships like the Leviathan and the America, and so forth, and 500,000 went in American-built ships. We pressed into service every ship that could cross the ocean. During that war we spent three and a half billion dollars on shipping, most of which never got into the war at all. At the beginning of that war the entire mercantile marine of Great Britain cost less than $2,000,000,000.

Mr. HAAG. I believe that that is a correct statement.

Mr. CULKIN. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. CULKIN. Mr. Witness, were you on the interdepartmental committee?

Mr. HAAG. I was not.

Mr. CULKIN. You were not?

Mr. HAAG. I was not a member of the committee.

Mr. CULKIN. Did you have a hand in drawing their report?

Mr. HAAG. I didn't have a hand in drawing the final report, but I was asked to comment on certain questions.

Mr. CULKIN. What I mean is this: I would like particularly to be advised in connection with this proposition: How big a factor is the