assessed against it. The amount shall be paid within thirty days of the time the notice is received and if not so paid shall be collected in the same manner as a civil penalty with an additional penalty of 10 per centum a month until paid. In the event that any insurance carrier fails to make payment of the amount assessed against it within sixty days of the time the notice is received the commission in its discretion may suspend or revoke the authorization extended to such insurance carrier to insure the payment of compensation under this act, subject to the provisions of subdivision (c) of section 46. Such sums shall be paid into a fund which is hereby created for the purpose of paying the expenses of administering this act. This fund shall be established in the Treasury of the United States and shall be kept separate from all other moneys in such Treasury and shall be paid out on vouchers approved by the commission. The bond of the Treasurer of the United States shall cover such fund.

SEC. 70. For the remainder of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1926, and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1927, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated, from any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $250,000 for the purposes of the act, including salaries and traveling expenses, rent, and equipment of offices in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, purchase of books, law books, stationery, and other supplies, printing and binding, to be done at the Government Printing Office, expenses of medical examination, and other necessary expenses. Such sums to be reimbursed to the Treasury of the United States by the commission from the sums collected by the commission for such years under section 69.

SEC. 71. The appropriations for the salaries and contingent expenses for the administration of the act of September 7, 1916, as amended, and of this act may be used in connection with the administration of either of said acts, as the commission may determine to be practicable and in the interest of efficient and economical administration, subject to the approval of the Director of the Bureau of the Budget. The amounts to be charged against the appropriations of the two acts shall be just and reasonable and shall not be so made as to result in any increase in total expenditures either for salaries or for contingent expenses on account of the administration of the act of September 7, 1916, except as authorized by Congress. Payment of salary to the same person may be made from the appropriations for the administration of the two acts: Provided, however, That in such case the total salary paid shall be in accordance with the provisions of the classification act.

SEC. 72. Nothing in sections 4283, 4284, 4285, 4286, or 4289 of the Revised Statutes, as amended, or in section 18 of the act entitled "An act to remove certain burdens on the American merchant marine and encourage the American foreign carrying trade, and for other purposes," approved June 26, 1884, as amended, shall be held to limit the amount for which recovery may be had in any suit at common law or admiralty or under a statute brought against an employer who has failed to insure his liability under that act or to any proceeding to recover compensation or any civil penalty or assessment of expense under this act.

SEC. 73. If this act in whole or in part is repealed or adjudged unconstitutional by the courts, the period intervening between the time the injury is sustained and the time of such repeal or final adjudication or unconstitutionality shall not be computed as a part of the time limited by law for the commencement of any action against the employer relating to such injury; but the amount of any compensation paid or furnished under this act on account of such injury shall be deducted from any judgment or damages on account thereof.

SEC. 74. If any provision of this act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances be held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the act and of the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 75. This act, except as prescribed in sections 54 to 70, inclusive, shall become effective July 1, 1926, and sections 54 to 70, inclusive, shall become effective on the passage of this act.

The CHAIRMAN. I desire to present a letter from Mr. Furuseth, president of the International Seamen's Union of America, who is well known here, and many of you gentlemen present know him, with respect to this bill.

Senator OVERMAN. Mr. Chairman, let us have the letter read. The CHAIRMAN. Very well, I will read it. This letter is dated March 15, 1926, and addressed to me as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Hon. ALBERT B. CUMMINS,

INTERNATIONAL SEAMEN'S UNION OF AMERICA,
Washington, D. C., March 15, 1926.

Chairman Judiciary Committee of the Senate,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATORS: You have before your committee an identical bill introduced in the Senate (S. 3170) and in the House (H. R. 9498) to provide compensation for employees injured and dependents of employees killed in certain maritime employments, and providing for administration by the United States Employees' Compensation Commission.

The bill as it is written will apply to men who load and discharge vessels but who are not members of the crews of such vessels, although they are doing seamen's work, and to all other harbor workers who are employed on vessels while in harbor doing maritime work which, in the past, nearly always was and often now is done by the seamen forming the crews of such vessels. seamen are excluded from the operation of the bill by specific provision.

The

Senator OVERMAN. They are all employees of the United States, are they?

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no; they are men employed in maritime work. They are not employees of the United States.

Senator ÖVERMAN. Oh, I see.

The CHAIRMAN. I continue reading:

Whether a bill drawn as this one is will have the general application and the uniformity which it seems that the Supreme Court decision requires, in order that the law may be constitutional, is a matter which you will consider and determine.

This is written on behalf of the seamen with the purpose of making it perfectly plain to each member of the committee that the seamen do not desire to be included in this bill, which it seems might be done by striking out the exception. For the purpose of making our reasons for our attitude plain, we submit herewith a copy of a report made to the last convention of the Seaman's Union and adopted by it, with the additional action taken by the convention, namely, “That the seamen protest against workmen's compensation being made applicable to seamen, unless such compensation be given in addition to all existing remedies, coupled with the seaman's right to choose between compensation and existing remedies after the accident has occurred."

As seamen, we believe, and in the report we have tried to explain, that there are fundamental differences between the men working in a harbor or on shore and the men working on board of a vessel as seamen, under the law. We believe that the duties of the men on shore and the men at sea are so fundamentally distinct from each other that compensation as such and as usually understood, would be a premium on carelessness, if not on crime.

Expressing the confident belief that in dealing with compensation, you will either give it as a distinct addition to existing remedies, or you will see that it has no application to seamen whatsoever.

On behalf of the seamen,

Most respectfully,

ANDREW FURUSETH.

The CHAIRMAN. I desire to observe that this bill provides--in order to make the point that Mr. Furuseth has mentioned—as follows:

SEC. 3. This act shall apply to any employment performed on a place within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, except employment of local concerns and of no direct relation to navigation and commerce; but shall not apply to employment as master or a crew of a vessel.

I assume that that is the exception to which Mr. Furuseth refers in the letter I have just read. Now, whether it is sufficient or not I do not know.

Senator OVERMAN. Is this bill we are considering the House bill or the Senate bill?

The CHAIRMAN. It is the Senate bill. There has been introduced in the House a bill which is identical with the one I introduced in the Senate, and which bill we are now reading from.

Senator OVERMAN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will now be glad to hear from those who are to appear in connection with this bill.

Mr. CHLOPEK. I should like to be heard.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well; give the committee reporter your full name, and whom you represent.

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY J. CHLOPEK, PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK

CITY.

Mr. CHLOPEK. I will say that my name is Anthony J. Chlopek, and that I represent the International Longshoremen's Association, with a membership covering the Atlantic seaboard, the South Atlantic and Gulf coast districts, the Great Lakes district, and the Pacific coast district.

Senator OVERMAN. Are you the president of that association, Mr. Chlopek?

Mr. CHLOPEK. Yes, sir.

Senator OVERMAN. What is your membership, in numbers?
Mr. CHLOPEK. Approximately 120,000.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed with your statement.

Mr. CHLOPEK. This proposed legislation, gentlemen, hardly requires any pleading on the part of the longshoremen and the ship repair men, for its enactment into law. Congress on two occasions recognized the justice of protection to the workers whom this bill intends to cover by passing compensation laws. But, unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court has said that Congress erred in enacting that legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you remember the title of the case to which you refer, and where it can be found?

Mr. CHLOPEK. The last case is that I think of Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen (244 U. S. 205). Then there was Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart (263 U. S. 149), and State of Washington v. Dawson & Co. (264 U. S. 219).

The CHAIRMAN. And you are trying to get around the decisions in those cases with this bill, as I understand.

Mr. CHLOPEK. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be well for you to state here for the record the substance of those decisions.

Senator OVERMAN. What did they decide?

Mr. CHLOPEK. The court has said:

Without doubt Congress has power to alter, amend, or revise the maritime laws by statute of general application * * * This, we think, would permit the enactment of a general liability law or general compensation law for injured employees.

Senator OVERMAN. Did they go into the question of coastwise navigation and ocean navigation, as to any distinction between the two?

Mr. CHLOPEK. I did not quite catch your question, Senator. Senator OVERMAN. Did those decisions go into the question of any distinction between coastwise vessels and ocean vessels?

Mr. CHLOPEK. No; there is no difference.

Senator OVERMAN. They do not draw any distinction between the two classes of vessels.

Mr. CHLOPEK. No, sir. Nor is there any difference as to employment, whether a longshoreman is employed loading a coastwise vessel or a deep-water vessel, I mean a vessel going to foreign ports. Senator OVERMAN. That is what I wanted to know about, whether they made any distinction.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose our authority to pass a law of this sort lies in the grant to Congress of authority to regulate commerce among the States and foreign nations, does it not?

Mr. CHLOPEK. I am not a legal man, Mr. Chairman, and I think those questions could be best answered by our legal representative, Mr. Austin, or Professor Chamberlain, who can discuss points of law.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know of any other reason.

Senator OVERMAN. I wanted to know what the Supreme Court of the United States decided this case unconstitutional upon. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. If Mr. Chlopek will permit me

Mr. CHLOPEK. Certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. Just give your name and whom you represent.

STATEMENT OF J. P. CHAMBERLAIN, ESQ., ATTORNEY AT LAW NEW YORK

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I am a member of the bar of the State of New York and am a member of the State of New York Maritime Association on Labor Legislation, and represent the Longshoremen's Union here.

In the other two cases an attempt was made by Congress, acting under the advice of the Longshoremen's Union, to permit the States to pass such compensation laws to apply to longshoremen. The point was argued very carefully, and a very careful report was submitted by the Judiciary Committee of the Senate, Senator Nelson at that time being chairman, and it was based on the theory that it was in practice very difficult to administer a compensation law affecting these employees in ports all over the country-and those employees were carpenters, upholsterers and men of various types who were local workers, working not for the ships but for local employers, that is, for local stevedores, local dry-dock companies, and local contractors for repairs to vessels-and that they should be taken care of as are other workers under the State law.

Congress tried to take care of that situation, and we all agreedthat is employers and employees, and everyone-that that was the proper thing to be done. But the court refused to allow that to be done. And in the last decision, from which Mr. Chlopek read you, they had the second of those laws under consideration, and the language that he read to you apparently refers without any doubt,

not to the Commerce clauses but to the admiralty clauses that is, the power which is vested in the Congress to amend, change, or modify admiralty legislation.

And therefore this bill is based on his suggestion that under the admiralty power of the Congress it can change the admiralty or maritime law.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the ground upon which it was held that the New York State compensation law did not apply.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. They held that the admiralty law was for Congress alone and that State laws could not interfere with them. The CHAIRMAN. That you could not get compensation under the New York compensation law.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. That is right. And in this last decision, being pressed on that point, the court says that compensation is possible under the admiralty power of Congress. So this bill is based on that theory of the court.

Senator OVERMAN. This bill is based on that decision.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. It is based on that suggestion. And really there would be no way possible to take care of the situation otherwise that I know of. If it is desired I can file a brief with the committee on that point.

Senator OVERMAN. We would like to have it.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. All right.

Mr. CHLOPEK. Mr. Chairman, the longshoremen fully understand the position of the International Seamen's Union, and it is not our desire nor our intention that the seamen be included in this proposed legislation. We recognize that the seamen are now quite well taken care of. They have the maintenance and care and compensation in port, and

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). Let me ask you a question right at that point. My unfamiliarity with work on the sea and in connection with it leads me to make this inquiry, which may be very clear to you gentlemen: This bill provides, in the latter part of section 3: but shall not apply to employment as master or member of the crew of a vessel.

That left the seamen out.

Mr. CHLOPEK. Exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. He is either an employee upon a vessel, either a master or a member of a crew.

Mr. CHLOPEK. Yes, Mr. Chairman, those who have to do with the navigating of the ship are members of the crew. But the longshoreman is employed

The CHAIRMAN (interposing). I understand that, but I want to know whether-for instance, take the first mate on a vessel, and is he a member of the crew?

Mr. CHLOPEK. He is.

The CHAIRMAN. As distinguished from the master of the vessel? Mr. CHLOPEK. Yes, sir.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I might say, gentlemen of the committee, that that is the language that Mr. Furuseth wanted. He thought the language excluded his men, and we had that matter up with him in the consideration of the previous bill, and he accepted that language as covering the matter.