STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. DOUGLASS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. DOUGLASS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have the honor to represent in Congress what I am proud to call a longshoreman's district. I represent East Boston and Charlestown, and they are of course parts of the port of Boston. I am There are in my district at least 2,800 longshoremen. I supppose I am familiar with everyone of those hardworking men. I may say that my own father was a longshoreman part of his life; and naturally my sympathies run with that class of working men. familiar in my everyday life with the hard and arduous labor that these men do along the Cunard wharf and along the Boston & Maine docks. I know that the principle of the compensation act, as I understand the law, does not now apply to the longshormen who happen to be injured when they are upon the gangplank, or upon a boat tied up at the wharf. That is the situation as I understand it. In our State of Massachusetts, he does not come, therefore, under our State compensation act, and he is left without relief under our United States compensation act. I believe, as one Member of Congress-and I think I am qualified to speak for those hardworking men-that, in all fairness and justice, the principle of compensation to employees should be extended, if to no other class, particularly to this class of men who do this essential work which is so necessary in our commerce. There is not anything I can add to what you gentlemen know about the benefits of the compensation act in a general way. I simply appeal to you in behalf of these hardworking citizens of America and they are all citizens where I come from-that you may do the right and proper thing by them, in the interest of humanity and in the interest of labor itself. STATEMENT OF EDWARD F. MCGRADY, REPRESENTING THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Mr. MCGRADY. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I do not intend to go into any legalistic arguments on this subject. That has been very well and ably covered. I want to say that, out of our membership of 4,000,000 workingmen and women, this is the only group of workmen that are not protected by a compensation law. They are absolutely helpless. We find along the water fronts, not only of the Atlantic coast, but of the Pacific coast, scores, hundreds of men, good, honest, workingmen who have been injured in their employment. And they are objects of charity. They and their families are in the direst poverty. Mr. DYER. Mr. McGrady, Congress has made several efforts to take care of these men? Mr. MCGRADY. That is quite right, Congressman. Mr. DYER. And the courts have decided that they did not go about it in the right way. Mr. MCGRADY. That is right. This bill provides for the correction of that. Mr. DYER. I think so; and if it does I believe it ought to be enacted. Mr. MCGRADY. I believe it is the intent of the lawmakers of the Nation that this group of workers should be protected. We have, perhaps, made mistakes in the past in the kind of legislation that we have gotten through Congress; but this bill, according to all the authorities on law, will stand the test. And we ask you gentlemen to give us an early report on this bill. I recognize the condition of legislation in this Congress; and I recognize the fact that perhaps you gentlemen will want to get away from Washington in six or seven or eight weeks; and I know that it is only a question of three or four weeks before we are going to be in another legislative jam here. But the opposition to this bill is of such a slight character that we hope your committee will give us an early report; and I know that if we can get a report out of your committee we can go before the Committee on Rules, and I hope we can get them to give us time, so that the bill may become a law this session. Mr. BOWLING. Mr. McGrady, I have listened with a great deal of interest to this argument here; because this is a matter about which I knew practically nothing, as mine is an inland district. I want to ask you this question in attempting to crystallize all of this in my mind: Is this your position: That you are confronted with a situation that the State is unable to meet and that Congress has not met? Now, is that where you are? Mr. MCGRADY. That is where we are. Mr. BOWLING. Well, I think you have made out a case for relief; I will say that. Now, whether we can get out the bill is another proposition. Mr. MCGRADY. Thank you, very much, Congressman. Mr. CHLOPEK. We do not like to intrude upon the time of the committe, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to ask Mr. Coughlin to speak for a few minutes. STATEMENT OF JOHN P. COUGHLIN, SECRETARY CENTRAL TRADES AND LABOR COUNCIL OF GREATER NEW YORK, AND SECRETARY OF METAL TRADES COUNCIL OF NEW YORK STATE Mr. COUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I am secretary of the Central Trades and Labor Council of Greater New York and vicinity; and secretary of the Metal Trades Council of New York State. I represent the other end of this show, the ship repairmen. They are in a position similar to that of the longshoremen, except that they are the men who are engaged in the necessary repairs on board ship. That is, the machinists, the boiler makers, the electricians, the shipwrights, the ship carpenters, and all the other trades that go into the making up of keeping the ship in repair. Now, we are in a position where only 25 per cent of our men are affected in this matter. But with the change of modern driving power, the accidents that occur upon the ship are the most fatal and the most serious accidents. In other words, ships now, instead of burning coal as a fuel, are burning oil. And with old common law actions applying, a burner coming aboard a vessel to burn a hole in a bulkhead might suddenly where an opening had not been properly steamed out, run his torch through the side of the boat-and immediately 10 or 12 men who may be down in the engine room doing repairs have their lives snuffed out. In one case that I have in mind in a dry dock in New Yorkand by the way, this company that was concerned there went before the Wainwright Commission in 1909, and testified that if workmen's compensation were to be put into effect in that State they would go out of business. Yet their dock is now doing about 350 per cent more business than they were doing in 1909. They had 225 men aboard a vessel in the dry dock. Just by the grace of God it happened at noontime when most of those men were off the ship for lunch. Owing to some unknown cause-perhaps some one threw a match or lighted torch into a tank-there was an explosion. The records will that there were seven or eight men carried off that ship dead, and numbers of them were injured. That happened in 1921. Now, there is not any remedy under the law for that. Yet the employer, who must cover his men on the dock, usually pays on a pay-roll basis, and he has to pay for the protection because the men float between the ship and dock and the ship and vice versa; so that the cost is negligible, so far as the employer is concerned. We are coming to Congress after three attempts. I remember when Mr. Volstead was the chairman of this committee at the last hearing we had here; and we asked him to amend the Federal law, just as the Congressman on our right has suggested here this morning, to give us the relief that he has suggested, by removing the jurisdiction from the maritime contract into the State courts. And that relief was given to us. And in the Stewart decision the law was declared unconstitutional. Now, gentlemen, there is need, not only for haste, but for immediate relief; and I am asking you, in behalf of not only the 25,000 men employed in the port of New York in the metal trades, but in behalf of the metal-trades men of the United States that are employed in all of the ports on the seaboard, and the inland ports on the Lakes, to give us this relief, because relief is needed. I thank you. I. Mr. STROTHER. Are your people taken care of under this bill? Mr. COUGHLIN. Yes; we are taken care of-the ship repairmen. Mr. CHLOPEK. Mr. Chairman, this closes our presentation. I will say that Mr. William F. Dempsey, representing the Atlantic coast district of the National Longshoremen's Association, and Mr. John Doolin, representing the Longshoremen of Boston, are present; but in view of the lateness of the hour, will not make any statement. In conclusion, I want to express on the part of the workers who are interested so vitally in this proposed legislation our deep appreciation of the kindness and courtesy you have shown us here at this hearing. And permit me, on behalf of those workers, to appeal to you gentlemen to try to arrange your affairs in such a way that we can get such relief at this session of Congress. I thank you. The CHAIRMAN. I think I can say for the committee that the matter will be considered and reported just as speedily as possible, considering the right of the employers, who wish to be heard on the amount of compensation only, and not in opposition to the bill. (Thereupon, at 11.50 o'clock, the committee adjourned). HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. George S. Graham (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, we have before us to-day for further consideration H. R. 9498. Mr. HERSEY. Are we to hear to-day those against the bill? The CHAIRMAN. We heard those for the bill at the last meeting; and I assume that those who have objections to the bill will be heard to-day. I have here several communications, including one from the Waterfront Employers of Seattle. Mr. HERSEY. Against the bill? The CHAIRMAN. Against the bill. It was impossible to get them here in time for this meeting; and I suggested that they send on their objections. Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted, I will appear for the waterfront employees; and if I may ask your indulgence, I have a committee meeting at 11 o'clock, and I would like to be heard first, if it is agreeable to the committee. The CHAIRMAN. I see no objection to that. Mr. MONTAGUE. Is he against the bill or for it? Mr. PETERSON. I can not say that we are against it. The CHAIRMAN. I understand most of the objections are to particular features of the bill-either the rates or the system of enforcement-and there are no real objections to the fact of creating compensation for longshoremen and stevedores engaged in admiralty work. Mr. MONTAGUE. May I ask this, Mr. Chairman? Has the question of the constitutionality of this bill been discussed? Has any one presented any views on that subject? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it is because of three decisions of the United States Supreme Court_which were referred to in the last hearing that this bill is here. In the first case, they decided that admiralty cases were outside of State compensation laws. In the second case, they decided that Congress could not delegate legislative power to the States to make the State laws applicable; I do not recall the third; but that was the substance of those. Mr. TUCKER. And this bill is intended to remedy that? The CHAIRMAN. This bill is intended to provide for it under admiralty; as that comes exclusively under the control of Congress, Congress must, as Mr. Justice McReynolds indicates in his opinion, provide the compensation if it is to be provided at all; otherwise these people will be left to their common law remedy. Mr. MONTAGUE. Under the Constitution of the United States, the power of Congress extends to cases of admiralty. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. MONTAGUE. And the question is whether this is under that power. The CHAIRMAN. Yes; this is intended to be an exercise of the control of Congress in admiralty. Now, you may proceed, Mr. Peterson. I have here a brief that was sent on by the employers' associations. Mr. PETERSON. Yes; I have a copy of that. The CHAIRMAN. Please state your name for the record and whom you represent. STATEMENT OF WALTER J. PETERSON, REPRESENTING PACIFIC AMERICAN STEAMSHIP ASSOCIATION, SHIPOWNERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC, AND WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION OF SEATTLE Mr. PETERSON. My name is Walter J. Peterson. I represent the Pacific American Steamship Association; the Shipowners Association of the Pacific, and the Waterfront Employers' Association of Seattle. Mr. DYER. Who are the Shipowners' Association of the Pacific? Mr. PETERSON. They are an association of which the Waterfront Employers' Association of Seattle are an affiliated organiaztion. Mr. DYER. Who are the Pacific American steamship owners? Mr. PETERSON. They are the owners of the large ocean-going tonnage on the Pacific coast. Mr. DYER. Who are they? Mr. PETERSON. They represent some 78 different firms in our organization. They include the Dollar interests, the Panama Pacific, the Luckenbach, and many others all the big ship operators on the Pacific coast, and also all of the smaller vessels in the coastwise trade. The Waterfront Employers' Association represents the stevedoring operators, including some 6,000 stevedores; and we have some 44,000 seamen in the records of our department. Now, it is not our province at all to oppose the passage of a bill providing compensation for maritime employees. And I desire to read into the record the attitude of the Pacific American Steamship Association, the Waterfront Employers, and the Shipowners Association of the Pacific, as well as the American Steamship Owners Association of the Atlantic seaboard, who met last May to consider maritime needs; and they adopted this statement-which I read to show the attitude of our organizations with reference to compensation: It has come to be an accepted principle in all lines of industry that an industry should carry the burden of losses to its workmen and their dependents, arising through personal injuries and death suffered in the course of employment, by awarding compensation to the injured workman, or in case of death to his dependents. There is no good reason why the same principle should not be applied to all maritime workers so that they and their dependents may be reasonably compensated for disability and loss of life. The associations |