CONDUCT OF DISCIPLINARY HEARINGS OF COAST GUARD COMMISSIONED OFFICERS FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 1948 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 3, The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a. m., in room 327, Old House Office Building, Hon. Louis E. Graham (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. GRAHAM. The committee will please come to order. We have under consideration S. 1077, an act to amend section 4450 of the revised statutes of the United States, as amended by the act of July 29, 1937, and for other purposes. Mr. GRAHAM. There are several who wish to be heard on this bill. The Chair will recognize Mr. Latham, from New York. STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY J. LATHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, my name is Henry J. Latham, Member of Congress from the Third District of New York. I am especially interested in this matter, Mr. Chairman, because I am a member of the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and because there is a question of public safety involved, I think, in the passage of this bill. I would like to break down my remarks and divide them into three categories: 1. What is the situation today with respect to this problem? 2. How did it come about, and 3. What should be done about it? This matter came to my attention originally because of an editorial which appeared in the New York Herald-Tribune on December 11, 1947. The title of this editorial is "Shipboard Discipline" and the best way I know to present this problem is to read this very brief editorial. Mr. GRAHAM. All right. Mr. LATHAM (reading:). Ship discipline is one of those indispensables without which no merchant marine can survive. So the charge that in American ships it has fallen to its lowest point in maritime history deserves comment, to put it mildly. Our merchant seamen are treated and protected more generously than any other. At the moment our merchant fleet dominates the seas. Imagine, then, a situation in which the men who man our ships are free of the restraints associated with their responsibilities. Yet that appears to be the case, due to a provision of the administrative procedures act effective last summer. This law, wise in its general intent, deprived administrative agencies of their power to try and penalize offenders against bureaucratic rules. But in doing so it made the Bureau of Marine Inspection of the Coast Guard, previously able to punish seamen and ships' officers for shipboard offenses, little more than an investigating agency. The result is that insubordination of various degrees has es caped correction and penalty. This country is a maritime nation, has been since our forefathers peopled it. Americans are familiar with the basic necessity for shipboard discipline. Its lack today in American ships must be remedied promptly if our merchant marine is to remain in the running. Which means that the Bureau of Marine Inspection should have restored to it the authority it enjoyed before the law was passed to which we have had reference. An amendment for the purpose has passed the Senate and is pending in the House. Let the House act-and favorably. I think it is very clear when the Administrative Procedures Act was passed, it did not include these officers of the Coast Guard who were holding these hearings in disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact section 7 (a) of that bill specifically exempted hearings where they were specifically authorized by statute. Now in R. S. 4450, under which the Coast Guard was holding these hearings since 1942, and had held over 30,000 hearings, it was set forth in the law that hearings were to be held by supervisors and inspectors and so forth. Mr. GRAHAM. Yes. Mr. LATHAM. So that it is very clear that the intent was when the Administrative Procedures Act was passed and the law passed, that the Coast Guard should continue to hold these hearings. Now what happened after that? A month after June 11, 1947, when the Administrative Procedures Act became effective, the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1946 became law and by an unintentional quirk in that law it wiped out the original exemption in the Administrative Procedures Act, because that wiped out the particular statutory positions of supervisory inspectors which gave the Coast Guard that authority. When that went through there was no talk about this particular thing and the Attorney General thereafter ruled since those statutory offices were wiped out and that came under the Administrative Procedures Act the Coast Guard could no longer hold those hearings. I think this is a serious matter. We have skippers of ships sailing them who are incompetent to sail them. I have seen records of many offenses, three or four cases pending, involving death, and no power to take away tickets of those incapable men, and something, I respectfully suggest, has got to be done. I would say, when the Administrative Procedures Act became law the Coast Guard still had authority under the law to hold these hearings and it wasn't really the administrative procedures Act that caused the trouble, but it was Reorganization Plan No. 3. That was unfortunate. I know a lot about the Coast Guard, since I was in the Navy myself during the war, and since it has had charge of these hearings and investigations they have handled about 30,000 cases, and out of those 30,000 cases less than 10 percent were appealed and only 4 went to the district courts and none were reversed. Mr. GRAHAM. Speaking from your own knowledge you are firm In the conviction there isn't anything in the nature of a Star Chamber ceeding at all? Mr. LATHAM. No; certainly not, and it is preferable to giving authority to these bright, young lawyers out of law school that don't know the difference between a forecastle and a lazarette on a ship. I would like to say that Mr. Ellsworth Buck is very much interested. He called my office and said he could not be here until 11 o'clock. Mr. MILLET HAND. Mr. Weichel also expressed complete support. Mr. GRAHAM. Those are the only ones I recall who have spoken to me about it. Have you information concerning the opposition by Mr. Walter and Mr. Gwyne? I doubt if they will be over here because of the matters on the floor. Anyway in the event we do not finish today we will carry it over until next Wednesday. Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much. I would like to appear. STATEMENT OF CAPT. A. C. RICHMOND, CHIEF, PLANNING AND Captain RICHMOND. The Coast Guard has no prepared statement to submit. The Secretary of the Treasury has reported favorably on S. 1077 which in effect does accomplish the same purposes as the bill formerly considered by this committee, H. R. 2966. Mr. GRAHAM. After having made a comparison of these two bills are you prepared to state wherein you think S. 1077 is a superior bill or meets the objection to the former bill? Captain RICHMOND. I think it does. Considerable testimony was taken on the former bill. I would like merely to add in the record what has taken place since we appeared on H. R. 2966. As of December 11, 1946, we conformed to the terms of the Administrative Procedures Act insofar as separating the functions of what is referred to of investigating officers distinguished from examiners. We continued to hold hearings under R. S. 4450 until June 11, 1947, at which time we discontinued holding the hearings. Subsequent to that we have investigated a number of cases. We have tried to administer R. S. 4450 on the principle in minor cases of admonishing the people involved, if there is indication that they have transgressed, and on the more serious cases we hold the record. Those more serious cases are building up at the rate of 100 a month. Mr. GRAHAM. And at the moment how far are you behind on your schedule? Captain RICHMOND. 700 serious cases. Mr. GRAHAM. That really demand your immediate action? Captain RICHMOND. At the same time we did that we have attempted to obtain funds for the hiring of civilian examiners in the event that neither of these bills become law. Mr. GRAHAM. Had you exhausted your appropriation before? Captain RICHMOND. Yes, that is correct, sir. It is really a limitation under our appropriation. We had originally in our 1948 appropriation a request for funds. That was rejected by the Appropria tions Committee on the ground that H. R. 2966 was then before this committee. When H. R. 2966 was tabled we had a supplemental request before Congress and we included it in the supplemental amount, but again the request for funds was rejected. They indicated that we could hire civilian examiners from our available funds, but since that imposed a limitation on the number of civilians we could employ, and by the terms of the provisions of the report they indicated they felt any employment would be temporary, we were in a position where we would have to discharge other employees for other purposes in order to avail ourselves of the funds to hire examiners if they were available. With respect to the availability of civilian examiners we have worked with the Civil Service Commission preparatory to establishing the position if possible. We have had the position classified for the field examiners without any supervisor, just the field examiner, and the job has been classified as P-5. To my knowledge there is no list of people who could fill the job at the present time. Mr. GRAHAM. Your organization needs highly skilled, trained men, and no amateur can do that work? Captain RICHMOND. That is correct. I have a copy of the civil service classification for examiner. The Civil Service does not set up a specific classification for us. The examiners are across the board as a whole, but our difficulty is we know of no individual that presently could be hired to do that job. Mr. GRAHAM. Now bringing your testimony down to date, Captain Richmond, and having in mind the statements made before, and having in mind the objections heretofore entered, by any reasonable consideration can an interpretation be placed on your actions by carrying this on up to date that you have been doing it in defiance of Congress after the passage of the law? Captain RICHMOND. May I ask something to get myself clear? Captain RICHMOND. Do you mean since June 11? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir. Captain RICHMOND. Since June 11 we have not been taking any action which would contravene the Administrative Procedures Act. We have been, in my opinion, failing to carry out the provisions of R. S. 4450 which requires us to take disciplinary action with respect to the certificates and licenses of officers and merchant seamen. Mr. KEATING. I never was convinced before that such star chamber proceedings were not taking place. I haven't heard the Captain's testimony, unfortunately, and I don't know what he has said. Mr. GRAHAM. May I suggest he sum it up? Captain RICHMOND. Sir, as a matter of fact, I have not testified on that point. It has been our opinion there were no star chamber proceedings. In fact, I think when the system was originally revised by the Coast Guard when we took over in 1942 we leaned over backwards to go quite the other way. I think the answer to that question was probably emphasized by Mr. Latham when he pointed out that in the 30,000 cases that had been heard less than 10 percent had been appealed, and only 4 had been taken to the district courts and none of those had been reversed. Mr. KEATING. I have a very high regard and respect for Mr. Latham and his analysis of any legislation or any situation, but I would be inclined to differ with him that that was any proof whatever star chamber proceedings are not taking place. Is it not a fact that up until the time when you ceased operating in this field the prosecutor and the judge in the case occupied the same office at any particular station? Captain RICHMOND. Up until December 11 of 1947, in some places, yes; particularly in the foreign hearing units. That was December 11 of 1946, and not '47. Mr. KEATING. That was true in this case, wasn't it? Captain RICHMOND. Not entirely. It was possible. I will put it that way. Mr. KEATING. It happened in many instances? Captain RICHMOND. In many instances in the small offices. In the larger offices those people who were hearing officers usually tried cases as distinguished from those officers investigating them. Mr. KEATING. But an officer today might be investigating a case and tomorrow he might be a hearing officer, might he not? Captain RICHMOND. In the smaller offices that is true. Mr. KEATING. That investigator today might be a hearing officer in the other cases. In other words the roles might be just reversed. Am I not right? Captain RICHMOND. That was true until December 11, 1946, at which time we specifically set up the hearing officers and only the hearing officers or examiners could hear the cases. Mr. KEATING. And that continued how long? Captain RICHMOND. For six months until June 11 of last year, at which time we had no more hearing officers because of the fact the Administrative Procedures Act precluded it. Mr. KEATING. In other words, you haven't been hearing these cases since June 11 of last year? Captain RICHMOND. We haven't been hearing these cases since June 11 of last year. Mr. KEATING. And at the time you ceased hearing them, certain hearing officers had the function only of hearing officers, and investigators only the function of investigators? Captain RICHMOND. That is correct, sir. Mr. KEATING. The hearing officer never acted as investigator in any case? Captain RICHMOND. That is right. Mr. KEATING. That was true in all of your stations? Captain RICHMOND. That is correct. Mr. KEATING. Did they continue to occupy the same offices? Captain RICHMOND. You are speaking of space now? Mr. GRAHAM. Physically. Captain RICHMOND. I could not answer on every case. They were in the same buildings. Mr. KEATING. They continued to go out to lunch together? Captain RICHMOND. I presume they did. After all, they were all officers of the same corps. I would not make the statement they didn't know each other socially. Mr. KEATING. As the chairman, I judge, has indicated before I came in, I was the only member of this committee who voted un |