is not capable of carrying on his vocation. When he gets out of the marine hospital-if he gets in there; because the marine hospitals are always full, and there is always a waiting list. With an injury like a loss of leg or arm that man can not carry on his vocation, and he has no place to go. The receiving hospitals and the different hospitals that are operated by the cities will not take him in, because he is not a resident, and he has no place on earth to go.

Seamen are an improvident class as a rule. They do not save any money. Those men have nothing whatever in the way of compensation for injury.

And we think that your bill has a vital defect in it, by reason of the fact that you have not provided compensation for seamen. I have heard that there has been some objection on the part of the seamen's union to the introduction of this compensation for seamen. But the Seamen's Union only represents about one-quarter-hardly that of the operating seamen in the United States. There are some 60,000 seamen who are not members of the Seamen's Union; and these men neither have spokesmen, nor are they in a position to have a word said for them.

So, speaking for the great mass of seamen-and I am a sailor and have been a sailor, and understand the situation fairly well-I say that your bill has a vital defect in it in not providing compensation for seamen. And that one thing alone, in my judgment, would be sufficient to make your bill objectionable to all who follow the sea as a craft, at least.

Mr. DYER. How would you remedy that?

Mr. PETERSON. I would add provisions in the bill to take care of seamen as well as the longshoremen.

Mr. DYER. Those injured on the ships?

Mr. PETERSON. Those injured on the ships; yes, sir.

Mr. TUCKER. Do you mean to say that there is no provision in the law now to take care of injured seamen?

Mr. PETERSON. Only under the common law rules in the admiralty courts; and therefore we are in a position where they can come into court and "nail" us for thousands of dollars. We want a compensation law.

Mr. PERLMAN. Is that your objection to it? [Laughter.]

Mr. PETERSON. No; but I do not think that is fair. And then many of these men have no person to take care of them; they have no money to pay attorneys.

And, further than that, if they are only injured in a minor way, they have no recourse; if it is a case of their being off two or three weeks, these men have no means with which to hire lawyers, and can not recover anything. Of course, if they are seriously injured they can go into the admiralty courts and get what the courts will allow.

Mr. PERLMAN. It will cost you much less under the compensation act than under the present system, will it not?

Mr. PETERSON. Yes; and it would be much fairer to the men themselves, many of whom now get no compensation whatsoever. Mr. HERSEY. Do you claim to represent the seamen? Mr. PETERSON. I am not trying to represent the seamen. representing the ship owning and operating class. But we have, as

I am

I said before, thousands of seamen who are employed by us; and we have a desire to see these men properly taken care of, by an act that will be provided to take care of them.

It is not a question of representing the seamen. I represent the seamen as a humane individual who has been a sailor, but not with any authority to speak for any sailors' organization or for the seamen themselves.

But, as I said before, I think this bill in its construction is admirable. I think it will bring about a very greatly to be desired condition of affairs. But I hope before the bill is recommend d for passage, you will take care of these provisions, or give us an opportunity to sit in with you, if the time is long enough to do that, so that we may consider the mater together and put in a bill that will cause no objection on the part of anybody, so that it will go through. You gentlemen will remember that the bill that was introduced by Senator Johnson some time ago, trying to provide compensation for seamen, was knocked out because the Supreme Court said it was not constitutional. Now, we want to try to have a bill this time that will stand the test of the courts, as well as the test of humanity, and at the same time, we want to be in a position to go along with you and aid in its passage.

Mr. MICHENER. Right there let me ask this: With those views in mind, why do you not submit proposed amendments to this bill carrying out your ideas?

Mr. PETERSON. Well, if we can do that; if we can do that

Mr. MICHENER (interposing). Wait a minute. Not if you can; but here is a bill which you state is generally correct but needs some correction?

Mr. PETERSON. Yes; and the seamen

Mr. MICHENER (interposing). Wait a minute; let me finish. Without discussing further what you can do or what you would like to do, why do you not submit in concrete form your suggested changes to this bill, so that we may have the bill as it is, with your suggested changes?

Mr. PETERSON. How much time will the committee give us to provide those changes.

Mr. DYER. What time do you need?

Mr. MICHENER. Well, if you have been considering this matter—— Mr. PETERSON (interposing). I have a copy

Mr. MICHENER (continuing). Wait a minute. If you have been considering this matter as you state you have; and if you are not simply att mpting to delay it, you must have some concrete views? Mr. PETERSON. I have

Mr. MICHENER. And as an attorney, or one who is familiar with these things, and having those views and being familiar with this bill about which you are speaking, it strikes me that you should be able in a very short time to submit to this committee in writing your concrete views on amendments.

Mr. PETERSON. We will be very glad to try to do that.

Now, you see we are speaking here for the Pacific coast. We have a bill prepared by Pacific coast interests. If we can have the assent of our Atlantic seaboard people, we are in a position to come here before you and lay our cards on the table, and perhaps give you the

information so that this bill may be amended at the present time; and if you will give us sufficient time to do that, why, we shall be very glad to make the attempt.

Mr. PERLMAN. Well, never mind concerning yourself with the consent of those others. It does not require the consent of anybody for Congress to pass legislation. Suppose you submit to us the views that your association has, and submit what you think is a fair and reasonable basis for this legislation.

Mr. PETERSON. If you will tell me how much time we will have to do that, we will try to do it. Of course, I understand that you can do as you please; but you will also understand that if you have the active opposition of the seagoing people on the East and West coasts, there is a chance that your bill will not pass. Now, we do not want to be in that position. We want to be in accord with you. Mr. SUMNERS. May I ask you a question? Would you be able to submit to the committee your personal views with reference to the amendments that ought to be offered? As one member of the committee, I am not willing to wait until you have canvassed your own people. And to be entirely candid with you, as one member of the committee, I am perfectly willing for the committee to do its best to pass this bill-and to pass it without

your consent. Mr. PETERSON. That is all right; that is within your province as: an American citizen and as a legislator. It is also within our province to take the privilege of dissenting with you, if we do not think your view is correct. That is one of the things that makes the world go around-differences of opinion. And if you will tell us just how much time you will allow us, I will be very glad to do that.. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to make a suggestion to the committee: This bill has been prepared, I understand, very carefully; but there is an objection made to certain features of it, although there is general approval of the aim and purpose of the bill.

Mr. PETERSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, if the parties here representing divergent interests, all professing to desire to have a bill passed as soon as possible, could meet together in conference, it might be a good thing.. I have been handed a suggestion of amendments by the representative of the longshoremen and the other people who are in favor of this bill. Now, if you have considered the subject and I understand Mr. Hunter is here, representing the American Shipbuilders (Inc.)?

Mr. PETERSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If you gentlemen could get together and within the next week-say this day week-suggest to us the amendments which you think would make this a fair and equitable bill, I think that should be done. I think the whole committee is in favor of covering this body of citizens who are not protected by a compensation law. I think the unanimous opinion of both employers and employees is that a compensation law is better for everybody-not simply for the shipbuilders or for the employees-than leaving them to their common-law remedies.

Mr. PETERSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN (continuing). With all the defects and technicalities and difficulties in the way of recovery on the part of the indi

vidual employee and liability to be mulcted severely on the part of the employer. We all agree that the compensation system that has come to be adopted is the natural and proper evolution in this period of civilization for the protection of both sides.

Now, if you gentlemen could get together and recommend to this committee what, in your opinion, would make this bill perfectly fair and equitable, and submit those amendments to us by this day weekone week from to-day-I think that would meet with the approval of the committee.

Mr. PETERSON. I will try to do that, sir.

STATEMENT OF HENRY C. HUNTER, NEW YORK CITY, REPRESENTING AMERICAN SHIPBUILDERS (INC.)

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I represent the Council of the American Shipbuilders, which includes some of the largest shipyards on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts; also the New York and New Jersey Dry Dock Association, which has in its membership substantially all of the large shipyards in the port of New York. can speak also for the Pacific Coast Dry Dock Association, which has in its membership many of the shipyards on the Pacific coast.

The shipbuilders generally are in favor of the principle embodied in this bill. We favor workmen's compensation.

We are opposed to some of the provisions in this bill-particularly the compensation allowed, because we believe that it is excessive. We have had some objection also to the administrative features of the bill.

At the meeting before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the shipbuilders were represented by men who had made a very careful study of the bill. And following the hearing I submitted to the Judiciary Committee a memorandum or brief or a résumé of the testimony which was introduced on the part of the shipbuilders.

I do not want to take up the time of the committee by bringing down here several witnesses who will practically repeat what has already been said before the Senate committee; but I should like the opportunity of submitting our memoranda or brief which was used before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I would like the opportunity of having a day or so to possibly make some changes in that brief, to cover some developments which have occurred since I submitted it.

The CHAIRMAN. There would be no objection to that.

I would like to make the further suggestion that your recommendations be submitted, if possible, in a concrete form, taking the shape of amendments, either by elimination, addition, or otherwise, to the present bill; and then if we can reach a conclusion on it, it, will be very agreeable to all of us.

Mr. HUNTER. I shall be very glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MONTAGUE. Mr. Chairman, can you suggest any day by which that should be done?

The CHAIRMAN. This day week.

Mr. HUNTER. That will be satisfactory.

ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF ANTHONY J. CHLOPEK, REPRESENTING INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. CHLOPEK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I would like to make this statement

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You have spoken already on the subject, have you not?

Mr. CHLOPEK. Yes; but I just want to suggest this thoughtThe CHAIRMAN (interposing). A truce has been suggested, until we can get the amendments in shape. Had you not better reserve your remarks?

Mr. CHLOPEK. That is just what I want to call to the attention of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. CHLOPEK. Gentlemen, there is no chance under the sun to bring about an agreement on a bill between the steamship owners, the contracting stevedores, the seamen, and the longshoremen. We have tried for six months to bring about an understanding with the seamen to have them included in this bill; and the seamen are absolutely opposed to compensation. They are now provided by law with maintenance and cure; and they have a remedy under the Federal employers' liability act, which is known as section 33 of the Jones Act. The seamen, so far as they are concerned, feel that they are very well taken care of. And this thought has been suggested by your opponents

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Will you pardon me if I interrupt your thought? Would not that be limited to the vessels that are owned and operated by the Government?

Mr. CHLOPEK. Absolutely not.

The CHAIRMAN. How about vessels of American registry simplywithout Government control or ownership?

Mr. CHLOPEK. That is the point that I am trying to make, that we can not get the American seamen to agree to compensation, and the vessel owners know that very condition; and, in my opinion, it is their purpose in suggesting that thought to you this morning to do it for the purpose of delaying action on this bill.

I am only sorry that Mr. Andrew Furuseth, the president of the International Seamen's Union of America, was not here this morning to hear the counsel for the owners make his statement. The seamen, gentlemen, will not go along willingly; and they will fight it to the last ditch if this bill was to include the seamen.

The CHAIRMAN. How are the seamen protected now?

Mr. CHLOPEK. Under the law as I understand it, gentlemen, the vessel owner is in duty bound to cure that man when he is injured. They refer to it as the "maintenance and cure" provision. He is entitled to compensation, and he receives part compensation, and when he is cured he has a right to bring suit against the vessel owner; and he has the benefit of the Federal employers' liability act-I am no lawyer, gentlemen-the same as applied to men engaged in work on interstate commerce on the railroads, which provision was read into the Jones Act, and is known as section 33, and which was upheld by the United States Supreme Court, in a case known as Johnson v. Panama Railroad Co., which was operating a steamship line, possibly a year and a half ago.