occurs to me at the present time why, if a man is inefficient aboard a vessel he cannot be disrated if it becomes necessary to do that, rather than give him a bad send-off so that he cannot get a job in another place.

Mr. HART. I was interested in that question when it first came up, Mr. Morewitz. What is your private opinion as to the authority of the Congress to make his decision final, denying the right of appeal to the courts. Is not that a denial of due process?

Mr. MOREWITZ. I think it would be, and the courts have practically held so. The way the act stands now, by agreement of the parties the Shipping Commissioner can make final adjudication. That is in the nature of an arbitration, because that is by agreement; and the contract, if it is fairly entered into, would be upheld. But this law that you are now seeking to enact, according to the committee bill, would make that action of the Commissioner final without any consent on the part of the seaman. I agree with you, Mr. Congressman, there are serious doubts about its validity.

Mr. HART. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right of appeal is an essential element in due process.

Mr. MOREWITZ. It is in most instances. Of course, on the question of the industrial commissions and the Longshoremen's Act Commission and all that sort of commissions, where they have an actual factfinding situation before them, you have to point out some error of law rather than a finding of fact.

Mr. HART. That is similar to the holding in Ying Wo. v. Hopkins, where the Secretary of Labor was considered the final authority on immigration matters.

Mr. MOREWITZ. The Secretary of Labor is considered so now, unless you can point out some arbitrary action.

Mr. HART. She decides matters of fact.

Mr. MOREWITZ. Matters of fact and conclusions. But this proposition, as I understand it, would make both questions of fact and law up to the Commissioner, and there would be no appeal. I agree with you that it would have very doubtful validity, but I wanted to point it out.

Mr. HART. I was inclined to think so myself.

Mr. MOREWITZ. It would seem to me that with regard to the remedy of the master, if a man's conduct is flagrant he has a right to disrate him. The Shipping Commissioner has the right to confirm that. Of course, even then the courts have the right to reinstate him on proper cases brought before them.

I was glad to hear Captain Milliken agree with me, however, with regard to the continuous discharge book, because my idea is that if it was imposed on everybody, the seaman would have no reason, or no valid reason, certainly, to object; but in the absence of that, there is no more reason why the seaman should have it imposed on him then anyone else.

The CHAIRMAN. Does anybody else here want to speak? It is a case of speak now or forever hold your peace. We are not going to continue these hearings indefinitely.

If there is no one else, we will adjourn at this time and meet tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the committee adjourned until 10 a. m. Saturday, May 4, 1935.)

TO DEVELOP AN AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE

PART II. MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1935

SATURDAY, MAY 4, 1935

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE MERCHANT MARINE AND FISHERIES,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., Hon. Schuyler O. Bland (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. I have promised to hear this morning a number of Members of Congress from the west coast on the amendment offered by Mr. Welch.

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. BUCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Buck. Mr. Chairman, I have simply appeared here to evidencé the support that the entire California congressional delegation is giving Mr. Welch's complete suggestion which has been placed in the record already. An amendment in appropriate language has been offered that would

The CHAIRMAN. The amendment as I understand it, Mr. Buck, is to take care of the differential in construction costs between the Pacific coast and other parts of the country, it being contended that, because of their distance from the seat of many of the supplies that have to go in shipbuilding, they are undertaking a heavier burden. And the amendment of Mr. Welch, as I understand it, is to try to equalize that differential in expense so as to place them on a construction parity with other shipyards in the country. That is the purpose. Mr. Buck. That is a correct understanding and clearly stated, Mr. Chairman.

At one time, in connection with certain shipbuilding contracts, governmental contracts, a differential was allowed to the Pacific coast shipyards.

Mr. WELCH. That was for naval vessels.

Mr. BUCK. That was for naval vessels only; yes. This practice has been abandoned for some time, and there has been no ship construction of any great amount in the Pacific coast yards for many years past. There has been continuing naval construction at the Mare Island Navy Yard and Bremerton; but, outside of those two yards and the building of a few small vessels around Los Angeles, shipyards are practically closed at the present time.

It is our belief that the adoption of the amendment offered by Mr. Welch at this time and the establishment of such differential would result in the reopening of these yards and putting these men to work out on the coast.

135956-35-49

761

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Welch also emphasized, for your information, the importance of such yards on the Pacific coast as a need for national defense and national emergency.

Mr. Buck. There is no question about that. If it were not for the existence of the two navy yards and the work done there, there would not be a crew of men anywhere on the coast to do any naval construction or repair work.

Mr. WELCH. In other words, Congressman, shipbuilding would be a lost art on the Pacific coast if it were not for the two navy yards? Mr. Buck. Absolutely; there is no question about that.

to commend the amendment to the serious consideration of the committee.

Mr. WELCH. Congressman Lea of California, the dean of the Pacific coast delegations, left a conference for the purpose of coming here for a few moments this morning.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLARENCE F. LEA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. LEA. Mr. Chairman, it is not my purpose in appearing before you to discuss the details of the bill. I am aware of its general purposes but have not devoted any attention to the details.

We out on the Pacific coast are interested in a problem, however, to which we ask the serious and friendly consideration of this committee. Manifestly the bill that is before you cannot be justified except on the basis of serving the best interests of the Nation. At this time it has a particular value on account of its contribution to labor employment, business recovery and relief from the depression, and then, from the long viewpoint, of course it has the advantage of establishing and maintaining an adequate American merchant marine. That, of course, involves a military feature which might become of very great importance should an unfortunate emergency require. But I think, viewed from practically every standpoint, so far as the value of this legislation is concerned, it would be just as important to the Pacific coast to have those advantages as any other section of the country. Some years ago, the Government authorized ship-construction loans which have aggregated $157,000,000, actually made, but not one dollar of that money has been expended upon the Pacific coast. The Pacific coast received no direct benefit for labor employment, for the establishment of shipyards, or providing for the necessities of the Government in the future if war or other emergency should make it desirable.

So, aside from the details of any particular amendment that is submitted to your committee, I would suggest the consideration of the most practical method of meeting this question of properly allocating the construction work between the two coasts on some just basis that can be defended from the standpoint of the welfare of the Nation. I believe, if there are any advantages in this legislation, they are such that the slight differential suggested would certainly be justified if that differential is necessary to accomplish the purpose. I think that proposition will scarcely admit of doubt. If necessity justifies this loaning by the Federal Government, certainly a slight addition to equalize and properly allot the benefits of it over the country is equally justifiable from the standpoint of national welfare.

So, without attempting to go into the details I thank the committee for their attention.

The CHAIRMAN. It is your idea that the maintenance of a proper number of yards on the Pacific coast is essential for national defense as well as relief?

Mr. LEA. That is my belief and I think, from the standpoint of the economic balance of the commerce and business affairs of the Nation, and in relation to international commerce over the Pacific, the great sea of the world, with undoubtedly an increasing commerce for many decades to come, and certainly considering the problem from the standpoint of balancing our economic system, we should not ignore the Pacific coast as an important part of the problem of ship construction and repair.

I thank you.

Mr. CROWE. And a merchant marine operating in the business of the Western coast is not any more a menace to the nations in the Pacific Ocean than the same thing is on the Atlantic coast?

Mr. LEA. That is very true. No nation has the right to find fault with another nation for taking the means it deems necessary for its own protection. That is an elemental purpose of government.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES J. COLDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. COLDEN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: My home is at San Pedro, at Los Angeles Harbor, in California, and we are very deeply interested in the building of ships. We have two yards at San Pedro, one of which is said to be the largest and best equipped shipyard on the Pacific.

I am here to supplement the efforts of Mr. Welch in his amendment to the bill that is under consideration in your committee. I want to call your attention to the fact that during the World War we had two shipbuilding plants at San Pedro of about six ways each, and they were noted for their expedition in the construction of ships, due largely to climatic conditions and their ability to work night and day through the entire period. The construction of those ships brought a large supply of shipbuilding labor to our territory and that labor has been practically idle all these years, doing odd jobs, and we have a great reservoir of shipbuilding laborers that ought to be taken care of in some way in our relief program. I know this is not strictly a relief measure, but I think in consideration of all our bills in this Congress we are taking into account, at least incidentally, the matter of employment.

The CHAIRMAN. I may say to you, Mr. Colden, that the evidence adduced before this committee very clearly demonstrates, I think, that from 85 to 90 percent of the work on ships is labor.

Mr. COLDEN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Not necessarily labor in the yard, but labor in industries, which extends throughout the whole United States.

Mr. COLDEN. Yes. As the chairman of the committee so well. knows, the construction of a ship on the Pacific coast will draw materials from every other part of the country and it is a very wide spread of labor. So that we cannot say it is specifically for the Pacific coast.