Mr. KEATING. I do not understand you will absorb it. If you do not have work to do you will not need the personnel to do the work. Captain RICHMOND. Maybe I can explain it. Before the advent of the Administrative Procedure Act we established the hearing units which were administered as a combined unit. That is to say, the investigative work and hearing examiner's work were all administered through the same unit. Therefore, you could use your stenographic help and clerical help much more economically, because the man who wrote up the charges and specifications was available to also act as reporter. Mr. KEATING. You had a figure you presented to the Bureau of the Budget. Captain RICHMOND. $281,000 for 43 examiners. Mr. KEATING. That is the figure you are estimating it will cost the civil service to do the job? Mr. SPINGARN. It would cost us. We would actually have to pay them. They would be on our pay roll. Mr. KEATING. It would come out of your pay roll anyway? Mr. SPINGARN. Yes, sir. Mr. KEATING. You think you can do it more economically with your own personnel? Mr. SPINGARN. I do not think there is any question about that. Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Springarn, do you base that on the fact you are more familiar with the terms and things of that kind? Mr. SPINGARN. No, sir; not entirely. We base it on the fact the civil service examiners in many ports would have little of their time occupied on these hearings and they could not be used for other Coast Guard work, partly because they are not qualified for it and the rules do not provide for it, whereas the Coast Guard officer would do other Coast Guard duties. Mr. KEFAUVER. May I ask one more question? Mr. GRAHAM. Yes, sir. Mr. KEFAUVER. The seaman or someone who is entitled to a hearing under section 4450, can he get that hearing at any port of entry in the United States? Mr. SPINGARN. The hearing would be at a port. Mr. KEFAUVER. At how many places in the United States can hearings be held? Mr. SPINGARN. Forty-eight. Mr. KEFAUVER. But there are three places you say where the majority will be held. Captain RICHMOND. That relates to districts. That does not necessarily mean the port. The Coast Guard organization has 14 districts, and in 5 of our districts there are relatively few cases, so we have not designated anyone to act as examiner. Mr. KEFAUVER. One more question, Mr. Chairman. Is there ever any conflict in position between the officers of the Coast Guard and the officers of the Merchant Marine? Captain RICHMOND. Maybe I do not quite understand your question, sir. Mr. KEFAUVER. That is, are the Coast Guard officers in every case competent? Of course, I know they are officers, but is there ever any 74403-48-ser. 17- -2 situation where their position might make them an incompetent court to hear the charges? Captain RICHMOND. We do not feel that it is, sir. Of course, obviously, where you sit in a quasi-judicial position, the person who is being heard may feel that the decision is unjust. Mr. KEFAUVER. Assume you have a Coast Guard officer. Suppose a charge is preferred against a Merchant Marine officer and you have a Coast Guard officer hearing his case. Do you think it is in keeping with our judicial system to have an officer of one branch of the service pass judgment on officers of another branch of the service? Captain RICHMOND. We feel that it is; yes. It is not, strictly speaking, another branch of the service. It is a question whether a man has the qualifications to resolve the case before him and we feel that has been amply justified in 5 years. It was in 1943 that we instituted this system. I think the Coast Guard has handled over 30,000 cases, officers and men, and I think that an examination of those cases will demonstrate that the decisions have been uniformly fair and those people who have, as I say, felt that any particular decision was unfair, have the right of appeal. Mr. KEFAUVER. To what? Mr. KEATING. To whom? Captain RICHMOND. To the Commandant of the Coast Guard. Captain RICHMOND. Yes, sir. Mr. KEATING. What did they do before 1943? Captain RICHMOND. It was under the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation and exactly under the same statute it is administered under now. Mr. KEATING. Were the merchant marine officers then the ones hearing the charge in the first instance? Captain RICHMOND. The inspectors, the employees of the former Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation, were merchant marine officers, but also a great majority of the Coast Guard officers are the same inspectors who heard the cases before. Mr. KEFAUVER. Is there ever any opportunity to get to a civilian court through this present procedure? Captain RICHMOND. It has never been done, sir. Mr. KEFAUVER: What is the ultimate route? Captain RICHMOND. I would rather you answer that, Captain Harrison. Captain HARRISON. You mean the present system? Mr. KEFAUVER. Yes. Captain HARRISON. They would go into court and have the case reviewed for errors of law. Mr. KEFAUVER. What court would they go into? Captain HARRISON. The district court. Mr. KEATING. Errors of law. They get no review of the facts? Captain HARRISON. No, sir. Mr. GRAHAM. It would not be an action de novo, would it? Captain HARRISON. No, sir. Under the old system the Director of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation made the decision in the first instance and passed on evidence presented to him by these marine boards. Then, there was an appeal from the decision of the Director to the Secretary of Commerce, and under Reorganization Plan No. 3 the functions of the Director of the Bureau and of the Secretary with respect to this type of case were transferred to the Commandant of the Coast Guard. Mr. SPINGARN. Well, actually would not the situation be this, Captain Harrison: The Administrative Procedure Act itself, section 10, would provide for the scope of the review. That is the review provision. Mr. KEFAUVER. It does not apply to the armed services. Is this part of the armed services? I presume it is. We are still in war. Mr. SPINGARN. The Coast Guard is back under the Treasury and is not to be included under that. What do you think, Captain Harrison? Captain HARRISON. I agree with you on that. It is a military organization. Mr. KEFAUVER. You think there is a right of review? Captain HARRISON. Yes. Even with this amendment the provision for appeal would not be affected. Mr. KEFAUVER. May I ask one more question. Mr. GRAHAM. Certainly. Mr. KEFAUVER, You stated, or the Captain stated, Mr. Spingarn, you had 29 officers doing this work exclusively. Is that right? Mr. SPINGARN. Yes, sir. Captain RICHMOND. That is right, the hearing boards. Mr. KEFAUVER. Suppose you had to follow the present law and get civilian personnel to take care of those hearings, what would you plan to do with those 29 officers? Captain RICHMOND. That would be a very difficult question to answer. They would take their places for allocation of duty along with other officers. Some of those officers are former inspectors of the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation who would revert to doing regular inspection work as distinguished from this hearing work, and there are a few reserve officers who presumably would be placed on the inactive duty list. I could not give you a categoric answer. Mr. GRAHAM. Is that all, Mr. Kefauver? Mr. KEFAUVER. That is all. Mr. GRAHAM. Any questions, Mr. Lewis? Mr. LEWIS. I would like to know why these civilians were put in this work by the act of last year. Mr. SPINGARN. They have not actually entered on the job, Mr. Lewis. Mr. LEWIS. I understand that. Mr. SPINGARN. Section 7 of the Administrative Procedure Act, and I think I have a copy here, provides that all cases of adjudication which are within the scope of section 5 of the act, and these are such hearings that shall be held either by the agency, and in this case that would be the Commandant of the Coast Guard, who obviously cannot hold 5,000 hearings, not personally, or by a civil service examiner appointed pursuant to section 11 under standards laid down by the Civil Service Commission. That is the provision in the Administrative Procedure Act. Mr. LEWIS. That covers not only your agency but many others? Mr. SPINGARN. It covers all hearings falling within the same provision throughout the government. Mr. LEWIS. Do you know how many agencies to which that is applicable? Mr. SPINGARN. Well, I could not give you an off-hand answer, but I have seen estimates that about 350 civil service examiners will be required under section 11 throughout the Government, and I could only say it would affect a very large number of agencies. It will affect other branches of the Treasury. Our Alcohol Tax Unit, for example. Mr. GORSKI. May I ask a question. Mr. GRAHAM. Go ahead. Mr. GORSKI. Is there objection to replacing these men who may drop out with civil service routine? Mr. SPINGARN. That is quite true. We think the recruitment of civil service examiners is going to be a very large task, unless Coast Guard officers will resign their commissions to become examiners, which is not very likely. Mr. KEATING. Is there not something to be said for the point if in a particular port city a civil service examiner were conducting these hearings, he would also conduct hearings unrelated to the Coast Guard? Mr. SPINGARN. That is not the way it is contemplated to handle these type of hearings, Mr. Keating. The point is in order to conduct this type of hearing he has to be an expert. Mr. GRAHAM. That is what was in my mind. Mr. SPINGARN. He has to know the customs and mores of the sea. He would not necessarily, in fact it is quite unlikely he would, be qualified to take a Securities and Exchange Commission case, or something that involved knowledge of a highly technical and totally different field, and my information is they expect to set up examiners with highly specialized knowledge. Mr. KEATING. If they are to set up as many as 29 for the Coast Guard; how many are there in all? Mr. SPINGARN. Originally 43. Mr. KEATING. I mean under this Administrative Procedure Act. I understood you to have given us an estimate of the number of examiners. Mr. SPINGARN. Forty-three. Mr. KEATING. Over-all? Mr. SPINGARN. Three hundred fifty was the over-all estimate. That is my understanding. Mr. KEATING. How many agencies are there? Mr. SPINGARN. All I can say there must be at least 25 or 30 agencies. I am just guessing. Mr. KEATING. I should say that was my understanding. Mr. SPINGARN. I would say at least that many. Mr. KEATING. I am wondering if they are planning on finding as many as 29 for the Coast Guard. Mr. SPINGARN. As of this moment, of course the plans for the Coast Guard civil service examiners are in abeyance and the Civil Service Commission has told us they are not going to consider the matter one way or the other until Congress acts. If we do get the examiners we will have to get the money and if we get neither we cannot hold the hearings. Mr. GORSKI. If this bill is passed you do not have to get another appropriation? Mr. SPINGARN. No, sir. Mr. GRAHAM. Your total case load is about 19,000, and you have 5,000 appealed. Mr. SPINGARN. About 18,000 or 19,000 investigations of which about 5,000 go to hearing. I should say Captain Richmond just before the hearing gave me figures showing there were 3,762 hearings from March 1946, through February 1947, but there was a 3-month strike period, so you could only say that was three-quarters of a year. Mr. GRAHAM. May I interrupt a moment. It is perfectly evident we can not finish this hearing this morning. There are two important bills on the floor this afternoon. Just to know where we stand, I would like to get your ideas about the next meeting. Captain Ash, representing the National Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots, says he cannot very well be back. I wonder if you would mind an interruption in order to hear Captain Ash. Mr. SPINGARN. We have a few minutes more of testimony, which we can resume at the next session. Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you. Come around, Captain Ash. STATEMENT OF CAPT. WILLIAM C. ASH, NATIONAL VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES, AND PILOTS OF AMERICA Captain ASH. I represent the National Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots of America. We have possibly 12,000 licensed officers, including masters in our organization. Approximately 75 percent of these men are off-shore. We differentiate between inland licenses and those of limited tonnage and limited scope of navigation. Off-shore are unlimited as to tonnage and any ocean. I shall quickly read my statement and amplify it with several remarks. No group is more desirous than the Masters, Mates, and Pilots of America that the merchant marine of the United States should be the best in the world. This fact is the reason for making an appearance and statement at this hearing. A full understanding of the spirit of my remarks requires a brief enumeration of the factors underlying the very existence of the merchant marine. The merchant marine is a civilian organization. Merchant seamen are sailors who work aboard merchantmen. And the term "merchantmen" means vessels used in commerce or trade or business to ply the seas for the purpose of exchanging commodities between peoples. The men aboard these vessels are civilians exercising their constitutional right to earn their livelihood and this right is a property right within the protection of due process. This civilian occupation existed long before we became a separate nation and is one of the civilian callings of which it is correct to say our founders were mindful when they spoke of men's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. World War II had its effect upon the merchant marine as it did in the case of almost every other enterprise. The particular phase with which we are concerned here is the transfer of jurisdiction over the merchant marine from the Department of Commerce to the United States Coast Guard. This was accomplished under the guise of a |