for seamen also is a part of the broad sweep of the improved general social-security legislation for all workers. At the time of the last maritime conference in 1936, the United States had just enacted a social-security law. In 1939, seamen were included under our general Federal old-age and survivors' insurance program. At present, we have over 75 million individuals who have earned credits under this insurance system, of whom 40 million are insured, and over a million and a half aged persons, widows, and children are now drawing these insurance benefits.

Recently I appeared before a committee of Congress recommending the broadening of the insurance system to cover all workers as well as self-employed persons, to increase the amount of the benefits, and to add disability protection for all covered persons, including seamen. At the present time, there is no general compulsory health-insurance system in the United States. On November 19, 1945, President Truman submitted to the Congress a recommendation for the establishment of such a nation-wide system covering all workers and their dependents. I appeared before Congress, urging action to carry out this recommendation. Under President Truman's proposal, seamen as well as other groups would pay their premiums into a National Health Insurance Fund, but if they wanted to, could develop their own medical-care arrangements, for instance, through their unions, through collective bargaining, or by other means, as long as such arrangements met the basic conditions of the general law.

These various social-security proposals being advanced by my Government for all workers are in accord with the trend of the times, to expand all of our social-security legislation for the benefit of all of our people, for all of our major economic risks.

I have set forth the principles which my Government believes safeguard the welfare and progress of all people. These principles offer the basis for specific progressive action by this Conference, and I urge that they should be translated into early action through universal ratification by the member nations.

BY MR. WELCH

Recently you heard the Honorable Lewis B. Schwellenbach, delegate representing the Government of the United States, express from this platform his views with regard to the Director's Report. In the course of his statement Mr. Schwellenbach said that the portion of the report dealing with the allocation of shipping and with the question of subsidies was not material or relevant to the success of this Conference. I speak likewise as a delegate of the United States Government and also as a member of Congress who for 20 years has been

closely identified with the formulation of our merchant marine policy. It is my considered opinion that discussion of such matters is not only improper but goes beyond the competency of this Conference.

Ten years ago the United States Congress wrote into law what has been interpreted as the magna charta of the American merchant marine policy. Title I of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936 sets forth a positive declaration of policy in the following words:

"It is necessary for the national defense and development of its foreign and domestic commerce that the United States shall have a merchant marine (a) sufficient to carry its domestic water-borne commerce and a substantial portion of the water-borne export and import foreign commerce of the United States and to provide shipping service on all routes essential for maintaining the flow of such domestic and foreign water-borne commerce at all times, (b) capable of serving as a naval and military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency, (c) owned and operated under the United States flag by citizens of the United States insofar as may be practicable, and (d) composed of the best-equipped, safest, and most suitable types of vessels, constructed in the United States and manned with a trained and efficient citizen personnel. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to foster the development and encourage the maintenance of such a merchant marine." (49 Stat. 1985)

That act was passed in our national interest. Its provisions laid the foundation for that great wartime fleet which, only a few years later, was to serve in the interest of all here present. I have no hesitancy whatsoever in telling you that, were it not for the foresight of Congress in 1936, we would have been incapable of supplying the millions of tons of ships that were so badly needed to win the war. I regret I am impelled to state to those who are making extravagant and unfounded charges as to our aims and objects with reference to our merchant marine, and attempting to direct our future policy, that, without our merchant marine, in all probability they today would be taking orders from Berlin and Tokyo, instead of criticizing our policy. The act of 1936 was so designed and it has been so administered, that it never has been and never could be used to the detriment of any foreign nation or any foreign steamship operator. Subsidies authorized in the act serve only to equalize certain low costs of operation under other foreign flags. That is our national policy enacted by Congress as a part of the law of our land. We are unalterably opposed to any change in that policy.

As one step in carrying out this official policy, the United States has participated in and actively supported international maritime conferences of the kind now being held here in Seattle. While the

United States has taken the lead in establishing minimum standards that are much higher than those of many other maritime nations, it has strongly encouraged other maritime nations to elevate their own standards to higher levels. The days of slavery and forced labor by shanghaiing and crimping men to man the ships of the world's merchant marines are long since past, and all nations having maritime interests should aim to establish minimum standards following the American policy. In fact, the agenda of these international maritime conferences is keyed primarily to the accomplishment of such a policy. In these postwar days, when the hearts of men and the actions of progressive nations are being directed to the development of international understanding and good will, the part to be played by men who man the ships sailing the seven seas as ambassadors of international good will is more important than at any time in the world's history. It is therefore imperative that every maritime nation increase its merchant-marine standards to the highest possible level in order to attract young men of sterling character to their merchant marines. This is to be best accomplished by raising standards to a level that will encourage them to make the merchant marine service a career. It is probably true that more good can come to the cause of international understanding and good will through the world's merchant marines than through any other single agency of international communication.

I sincerely hope that every nation with maritime interests will participate in future conferences of this kind, that standards throughout the world will be constantly raised to higher levels, and that thus a long step will be taken forward in comity between nations.

BY MR. PENNINGTON

We have refrained from speaking up to this point for several reasons. First, we were anxious to hear from you what you had in your heart and what you had in your mind. I think that we have had an opportunity to feel the pulse of those who are here as delegates and advisers, and to sense the attitude of governments here represented. Having listened for several days, I now feel that we have learned what some of your fears are, what some of your desires are, and what some of you will do.

In our opinion there are several things that bother you. First, the nearly 60 million tons of American shipping that seems to hang like the sword of Damocles over your heads, and that hangs over ours, too— or maybe I should say it is in our lap. Secondly, a lack of understanding of the American position, the American problem, and the American point of view. Thirdly, the over-all fear of the future, which runs to governments, workers, and employers alike. It might be well to

quote our late President Roosevelt and say, "There is nothing to be afraid of but fear."

The facts are: That of our nearly 60 million tons, the most optimistic estimates for future use by United States shipowners have never exceeded 20 million tons; most estimates are in the neighborhood of 15 million tons, with some estimates falling below that figure. That of the tonnage at which we finally level off, at least half will be engaged in our own domestic trades or, as our law states it, our "coastwise" trades, which are not subsidized, and of the tonnage engaged in foreign trade, the largest portion will be in berth trades and, of that, a good deal will be subsidized. That the American subsidy program, which so few people understand, is not a gift to the American shipowners, nor does the American subsidy make any guarantee against loss; our subsidy is a parity payment which makes possible the payment of American wages to American citizen crews. We do not use on American-flag ships citizens of another flag at substandard wages. Those nations who use substandard wages have no need of a subsidy. They get their subsidy from low wages and working conditions.

That there has been little or no study of the American situation is obvious, not only in most of the statements made by the speakers before me, but I believe in the Director's Report itself, which makes assumptions which are not based on sound fact; that is, of course, my own opinion.

To swing away from this subject to the more practical aspect of the entire situation, I now submit that this is not the forum for the discussion of purely economic matters, but is rather a forum for the discussion of wages, hours, and working conditions. The economic phases of shipping are being handled by the Maritime Consultative Commission, which meets in Amsterdam on June 17, four days hence, for the purpose of discussing the problems which are not germane to this Conference. I shall, therefore, refrain from any discussion thereof.

Turning to the recommendations by the Acting Director as to future tasks for the International Labor Organization, I should like to take one subject as a case point and comment thereon. If you will turn to page 51 of the Report, under the term of "Radio Operators", and continue on page 51, you will read the following:

"As long ago as 1930 the Fourth International Wireless Telegraphy Law Congress recommended that the International Labor Office should be asked to continue the study of international regulations for wireless operators in the mercantile marine', but little progress has been made with this study. It is true that the conditions of radio operators have improved, but the profession is still one in which the individual

can reach only a certain status and must then change to other employment if he wishes promotion. The introduction of radar and other similar navigational devices, which are of the greatest importance to the safety of seafarers, involves a new element in the problem, for radio operators are probably the most qualified persons to operate and service these installations. The question of who should be responsible for these instruments has already given rise to a certain amount of controversy, and the present would therefore seem to be a particularly suitable moment for the further study of the whole question— admittedly a difficult and delicate one-of the status of radio operators and the possibility of reaching agreement on international regulations governing the profession."

I call your attention specifically to this sentence: "The introduction of radar and other similar navigational devices, which are of the greatest importance to the safety of seafarers, involves a new element in the problem, for radio operators are probably the most qualified persons to operate and service these installations." Mind you, I am not attempting to demean the abilities of my good friends, Perkins and McDonald, or the members of their unions; the point is this: the whole question of radar is still in its infancy as far as merchant shipping is concerned and must be worked out by the scientific and technical people. I, for one, do not want a man untrained in navigation to interpret radar or other aids to navigation to the navigating officer, and I am sure you do not.

On this point I should like to quote from a statement by Harry J. Perkins, of the British Radio Operators: "This matter, in our considered opinion, is not suitable for inclusion in Conventions such as are being formulated here. Both must be the subject of national industrial and interunion agreements. What the future holds for radar, or the new systems of positional finders, few can foresee at this moment, and in any case the question of operation, maintenance, and servicing must be left, as we have already said, to national and industrial agreements." I further understand that it is the radio operators' position that they do not want to operate radar, feeling that radar is of necessity a navigational device.

I suppose I can best put my position by calling the International Labor Organization a mother-in-law. It can be either a good mother-in-law or a bad one. We think that in this and other instances the International Labor Organization has entered into management's affairs and the relationship between employer and employee prematurely and, like mothers-in-law are apt to do, has caused friction. We hope that one of the future tasks of the International Labor Organization will be to hold as close as possible to their obligations and interest.