But if you want an American merchant marine, then you want to see men of red blood, men who have the courage and the strength to do their duty under all circumstances, serve on your ships. That kind of man you can have by making the laws reasonable and decent; but you can never have them by putting such things as this bill [indicating] upon the status.

One thing more: There is an organization known as the International Shipping Corporation (Ltd.), with headquarters in London. Members of its executive board are in all of the important seaports of Europe. The American shipowners are not members of that officially, but they use exactly the same policy, both on the Great Lakes and on the seacoast, as used by that organization.

The purpose of that organization is to control absolutely all maritime legislation, and all maritime customs-everything that has got to do with the sea-and its further purpose is to prevent the United States from getting on the sea.

I know those things personally, because in 1913 I was made a member of a commission that went over to London for the purpose of meeting in an international conference for safety of life at sea. I was one of the 11 men sent by the United States over there. I was over there five days, when I found that the whole thing was to be used for the purpose of keeping Uncle Sam off the ocean. Private arrangements were confidentially put into my hands. I investigated it all I could when I was there; and I finally resigned from the conference. And I took my information and secret documents and put them before the Senate committee on Foreign Relations, with the result that the treaty died.

I know what they will do. And back of this thing is nothing more nor less than the same proposition.

I hope that you will keep the masters and seamen completely out of this proposed legislation, and that you will pass it for those whom you have before you.

And much as we would like to have compensation in addition to what we have got, and to cover some men that do not get anything— much as we would like to have it, even if you, Mr. Chairman, and your committee are willing to put it in, I would advise against it; because I know the power of the shipowners; and I am afraid that if you put any such thing as that in, it will help to kill this bill, either in the House or in the Senate.

And for that reason, I say as a seaman, that we are willing to stay where we are, if you will let us do that.

And we ask you, because these men that this bill is drawn to benefit are unprotected entirely, to pass the bill for their protection, leaving us entirely out of it.

Mr. PETERSON. My name is Walter J. Peterson. Mr. Chairman, I took part in the conference. You gave me last Thursday, a week in which to bring these gentlemen together; and I believe we have done it; and I believe you have a bill before you that has very largely been approved by both sides of this controversy.

But I just want to say this: That if Mr. Furuseth is talking for the seamen of the United States with authority, I would not have a word to say against his attitude. But Mr. Furuseth is speaking for some seamen of the United States with authority, I would not have a word

18,000 men, while there are some 60,000 men employed on our vessels, and 40,000 of them Mr. Furuseth does not speak for; and they are the same kind of flesh and blood as the men who work on the docks. Mr. FURUSETH. Perhaps the gentleman will tell us who is speaking for those other 40,000 men ?

Mr. PETERSON. Í do not think that has anything to do with the

case.

Mr. FURUSETH. It has got everything to do with it. Mr. PETERSON. We have 44,000 men on our records. And we believe that those men have the same right to consideration and the same right to compensation as the men who work on the docks. They are the same flesh and blood; and they should receive the same consideration. And why should they not have a right to consideration when you are providing compensation for these other em ployees?

We, on the Pacific coast-and we represent one-fifth of the merchant tonnage of the United States-believe that the seamen should be a part of this bill. And when I addressed you a week ago, I presented that matter to you, believing that sailors should have some consideration. And I ask you Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in the consideration of this bill not to take Mr. Furuseth's unsubstantiated word against that of the shipowners and employers. The CHAIRMAN. The hearings are now closed.

(Thereupon, at 1.15 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned.) (The following brief was submitted by Mr. John B. Andrews:)

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. ANDREWS, SECRETARY, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR LABOR

LEGISLATION

It is extraordinary that so many New York lawyers representing the maritime employers, while confessing enthusiasm for the principle of workmen's accident compensation, can find nothing good in this specific measure which is based upon the successful New York compensation act. These lawyers appear to believe that their duty to their clients is not fulfilled unless they condemn unreservedly the sections of this bill which are taken verbatim from the New York law and in the next breath complain bitterly that certain other phrases are not in the New York law. The proponents of H. R. 9498 at the beginning of these hearings pointed out a half dozen important departures from the New York act which had been suggested by the operation of law in New York and for most of which the New York administrative officials have amendments now pending before the New York Legislature. The proponents have also made it sufficiently clear that they have followed most closely the law in New York because that is the State having the largest number of workers of the particular classes to be protected by this legislation,

UNIFORM PROTECTION FOR MARITIME WORKERS

The amazing suggestion of one of the opponents that another effort be made to provide accident compensation benefits for these maritime workers in accordance with the varying scales of compensation in the numerous diverse State compensation laws might raise a question as to the enthusiasm of these lawyers for the prompt adoption of the workmen's compensation remedy even if it were not apparent that the suggestion has been finally turned down by the highest court. These New York lawyers in their opposition to H. R. 9498 have not explained how their compensation proposal for benefits to be dispensed in accordance with the diverse schedules of the individual State laws would be made to apply to the half dozen States, such as North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida, where there are no State compensation laws.

LOSS OF HEARING

The general attitude of the opposition is perhaps best indicated by their objection to compensating an injured worker for an injury which destroys the hearing of one ear. One of the opponents stated that a committee in New York had decided that compensation should not be furnished for the loss of one ear but only if the injury resulted in the loss of both ears. Recent and more authoritative testimony is offered by the introduction of a bill in the New York legislature this year at the request of the State compensation officials to provide 60 weeks' compensation in case of injury resulting in the less of hearing in one ear. This bill, H. R. 9498, proposes compensation for 52 weeks in such cases and certainly must be regarded by all reasonable people as a fair and just allowance.

OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE COMPENSION

The present provision for occupational disease compensation in the New York law is discredited because notoriously deceptive and largely ineffective. The official commission has presented an amendment to replace the present provision and to substitute the all-inclusive occupational disease coverage as in this bill. This is the plan in successful operation in California, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, as well as in the Federal law already adopted by Congress. Congress has recently received a favorable report from the District Committee recommending this same provision for private employees in the District of Columbia. The additional cost over the present New York provision will be but a fraction of 1 per cent.

The proposed clause of the opposition, relating to "but only such proportion shall be compensated by the employer." etc., in the definition of "Injury on page 2, (b) (2), is not in the New York law, and if adopted would be the cause of endless controversy. Moreover, it should be remembered that the employer in all cases takes workmen as he finds them and the principle throughout is the same whether the following disability be on account of accident or occupational disease. This problem is one of insurance for all industry involved, and the bill in its original form is a reasonable proposition. For the information of the Senate Judiciary Committee I wish here to quote a written statement secured recently, while this bill was under preparation, from the National Council on Compensation Insurance, 151 Fifth Avenue, New York City-a rate-making organization supported by all classes of compensation insurance carriers saying, in the light of practical experience with occupational disease compensation in America: "Our practice up to this time has been to value the addition of an all-inclusive occupational disease coverage in a compensation law, which had previously made no occupational disease provision, as equivalent to 1 per cent increase in compensation cost. the light of our present knowledge of the subject, we see no reason to recommend to the committees of the Council any change from past practice."

In

This adds but little to the total compensation burden of the individual employer, but to the individual victim of occupational disease it is a much needed and wholly justified relief as already recognized by Congress.

ADMINISTRATION BY COMMISSION

All American experience with accident compensation clearly indicates that if the administration of the complex provisions of this legislation is to be satisfactory it must be through a commission, with deputies, and not through the courts. The bill for longshoremen follows here also the law in New York and the laws of all of the important industrial States. New Jersey and Illinois in the beginning tried reference to the courts with unhappy consequences, and the laws had to be amended to provide complete commission administration. The Iongshoremen's bill utilizes the existing experienced United States Employees' Compensation Commission, which is authorized to appoint the necessary deputies under civil service. This is necessary to bring about the desired uniformity and to develop the proper organization for accident prevention, an important purpose of modern compensation legislation. Any suggestion that referees be appointed by the courts should be rejected. Some maritime employers have especially commended the form of the bill and its deputy commissioners.

Compensation law is not a theory of damages. It is designed to provide financial assistance during disability. If payments are not made promptly, a fundamental purpose of compensation is frustrated. Court delays would defeat this function of compensation. Under the earlier New Jersey court administration system for workmen's compensation an average of 272 weeks elapsed between the date of injury and the date of award in 72 fatal cases and 33 weeks in 130 nonfatal cases. Under commission administration in Massachusetts comparative records show but 10 days average for undisputed death cases and but 47 days average for disputed death cases. The theory and practice of court procedure is unsuited to the needs of compensation for work injuries. Court rules seriously interfere with proper hearing of compensation cases. The injured workers should not be obliged to hire a lawyer, and he often has little knowledge of his rights. Moreover, cases must be followed up. Overburdened courts are unfitted for this work, and they depend upon the initiative of litigants. Deputy commissioners are required.

The New York law also, like most State laws, while permitting an appeal to the courts on questions of law alone, gives to the commissioners final determination of the facts. This plan should be, and is, followed in this Federal bill.

There should be no "automatic stay" in case of appeal from an award. The accident victim must live. The judge, by the terms of this bill, may grant a stay in cases where he thinks it advisable. This is reasonable protection for both parties and should not be changed.

The full compensation cost, including that of administration of the law, should be borne by the industry. This bill (section 69 in original print) follows the New York method, and with this section retained none of the cost of administration will be borne by the Government. Even the authorized advance for the initial period, during which the law is put in operation, is to be paid back into the Treasury. The proposal to strike out section 69 (original print), if adopted, would be fatal to this legislation.

The theory of American workmen's compensation is that the industry should bear the financial cost of injuries to its human units just as it bears the cost of broken cog wheels, and then pass the cost on to the consumers.

But in order to give the injured workman incentive to return to work he is deprived of one-third of his wages. Under the 66% per cent compensation scale, he is by most laws still further deprived of all his wages during a "waiting period" immediately following the injury. Many laws have also fixed a further limitation on his compensation by setting a maximum weekly limit. In some laws this has resulted in furnishing not two-thirds of wages during total disability, but as low as 30 per cent or less! The tendency is to raise or abolish the maximum weekly limit and to cut down the waiting period. This is most important in view of the advances in the cost of living since the beginning of the war.

In New York where the weekly limit has been $20 for many years, the official commission has presented an amendment to raise it to $25. Governor Smith, in a message to the New York legislature, urged that the limit be raised to not less than $25.

The Judiciary Committees in Congress have this month reported amendments to the compensation law for civil employees raising the maximum limit to $116.66 a month, which is the equivalent of $27.13 a week. The report of the Judiciary Committee No. 936, April 21, 1926, includes this statement: "It is believed that the increases here recommended are not more than is reasonable when consideration is given to the advances in cost of living and wages.” The waiting period in the existing Federal law is three days, as in this bill and in the laws of Maryland, Utah, Washington. Oregon and South Dakota have no waiting period. And the bill recently reported favorably to the House for private employees in the District of Columbia likewise has both the $25 maximum weekly limit and the three-day waiting period. On the Pacific coast, California has long had a weekly limit of $20.83 Oregon of $97 a month with no waiting period, and Alaska no weekly limit whatever. The Arizona law, the latest to be adopted, has no maximum weekly limit, and no waiting period if the disability lasts as much as two weeks. This bill has no weekly limit, but the proponents have offered a compromise of $25 maximum weekly with the three-day waiting period. This should be adopted.

REMOVAL OF CERTAIN LIABILITY LIMITATIONS

Section 72, page 52, beginning line 23, is necessary.

In view of the recent East River Towing Co. case (266 U. S. 355) it is necessary to remove for the purposes of this act the liability limitations of the act of June 26, 1884, as amended. For example, if a boom should break and fall from a ship upon a lighter, killing several workmen employed thereon, the vessel owners could ask the United States courts to limit their liability to the value of the lighter which frequently does not exceed perhaps $4,000. In case, again, an ash scow should sink causing the accidental death of a workman, the liability limit requested by the scow owner would be the amount of the salvage which, of course, would be practically nil. In the East River Towing Co. case the United States Supreme Court affirmed a lower court opinion because the Jones Act did not repeal for this particular purpose the Federal law of 1884. The Merchant Marine Limitation Act of 1884 was passed by Congress in order to help shipping, but in dealing with the problem of accident compensation in the present bill the purpose is to render justice to longshoremen who are accidentally injured or killed in the course of duty. The employers may insure their risk.

In answer to the objection that this provision wipes out encouragement to the American merchant marine, it may be said that under the statutes enumerated in this section a ship owner may limit his liability for injuries sustained on board vessels-his liability is thus usually limited in the event of catas-trophe such as the sinking of the ship. This section of the act removes that right in case

1. An employer fails to secure his liability as required in the act and is therefore sued as provided in section 5, page 5.

2. Any proceeding is brought to recover compensation.

3. Any action is brought to collect any civil penalty.

4. Any proceeding is brought to collect the assessment of expense under this act. Since the definition of employer (subd. (m) p. 4) specifically exempts the United States or any agency of the United States, this provision would not affect Government-operated vessels.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST NONRESIDENT DEPENDENTS

Under even the harsh common law there was no discrimination in cases of accidental death against the dependents of the killed worker simply because heTM was an alien whose dependents had not yet come to this country.

Under some employers' liability statutes there were some discriminations during a transition period, but by 1911 the last of these (in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) were wiped out as contrary to good public policy.

But in the same year, 1911, New Jersey enacted the first of the permanent State workmen's compensation laws and inserted a discrimination against nonresident dependents, which was later copied into a number of other compensation acts. After 10 years practical experience New Jersey, in 1921, amended this obnoxious feature entirely out of her law. New Hampshire did the same in 1923. In eight States (Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin) the workmen's compensation laws specifically include alien nonresidents on the same terms as resident citizens. Under numerous other laws, which make no specific mention of nonresident dependents, awards to such claimants have nevertheless been made as a result of court decisions or administrative rulings. Thus by original statute, by legislative amendment, and by court and commission ruling there has been substantial recognition of the policy of nondiscrimination.

In some compensation laws the claims of nonresidents are still discriminated against, and in the New York law it applies not only to the relationship or number of relatives who may be eligible to benefits but also provides that upon request of the insurance carrier the award to nonresident dependents must be commuted into a lump sum of one-half the regular amount. However, in New York an official commission has recently reported on this subject and an amendment has been introduced to abolish the discrimination.

The shipping interests, apparently more interested in bringing favored seamen under this act than in helping to extend compensation protection to neglected longshoremen-and stating in the hearing that 80 per cent of the crews on American vessels are not American citizens-have sought by amendment to inject the New York alien discrimination into this Federal maritime