It is simply impossible to cover them at quarantine with that number of men. We have boats to carry them back down there. The time required to return a man to his vessel would be 2 hours. Generally speaking, I feel that the examination of crew there would give cause for great complaint from the traveling public, who, I think, deserve a "break."

Our particular desire in the administration of the law is to do it with the greatest facility to expedite the landing of passengers and to eliminate all cause for complaint against the Government machinery.

Senator KING. Do you not examine these seamen at quarantine? Mr. MONTGOMERY. No, sir. Senator, we examine most of them on the way to the dock.

Senator KING. You mean from quarantine to the dock?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. To the pier. That takes on the average about 1 hour. We generally examine the steward's department on the way up, so that they are enabled to assist with the removal of the baggage, and they are free to act at the pier and remove hand baggage and other baggage for the passengers.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. How about the crew of freight vessels?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. The crews of cargo vessels are examined there. Senator KING. Cargo vessels?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.

Senator KING. At quarantine?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.

Senator KING. But not passenger vessels?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. No, sir.

Senator KING. Why do you not examine the crew of passenger vessels at quarantine?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Because of the time it takes to do so. The crew of a ship like the Bremen, Europa, Majestic, Manhattan, or Washington takes 3 or 4 hours to examine.

Senator KING. Is it not difficult when you make the examination to determine the character of an individual, whether he is a bona fide seaman, whether he is a bona fide member of the crew, or whether he is seeking entrance into the United States in violation. of the law and under false colors?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Seldom, if ever, Senator.

Senator KING. What do you mean, "seldom, if ever"?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. We can determine that very quickly.

Senator KING. No difficulty in seeing whether the person representing himself as a bona fide seaman, in the sense that he is a bona fide member of the crew, arises? You have no difficulty in determining that? Is that what you mean?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. I do not believe so.

Senator KING. Do you frequently in your examination find that there are mala fide seamen ?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Frequently.

Senator KING. What do you do with them?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Detain them on board the vessel.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Recite the case of the Pennsylvania coming in a week ago Sunday.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. The Pennsylvania came in a week ago Sunday. An employment agency, or what we call a shipping master, had

signed on a number of additional members to the crew for the purpose of going on a West Indies cruise.

Senator KING. You mean he signed them on in New York?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. In New York. We found it essential to detain five of these crew members because they had all been in the United States previously illegally, as deserters. They had remained 2, 3, or 5 years as deserting seamen, and were here illegally. By the time the vessel had docked, one of them had disappeared. We were unable to find him. The other four were detained.

Senator KING. What did you do with them?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. They were ordered deported. Two of them were taken out, I believe, on the Washington, and two of them are still up in New York.

Senator KING. Under arrest or under detention?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Under detention.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. A $1,000 fine has been placed against the one who escaped.

Senator KING. I did not understand you. I understood you to state that in this particular instance to which you are referring, the ship sailed from New York Harbor to the West Indies.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Right.

Senator KING. Did you examine the crew before they sailed?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. No; on her return.

Senator KING. On her return?

Mr. MONTGOMER. Yes, sir.

Senator KING. But all of those who were members of the crew had shipped from the port of New York?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. I would like to say that in the examination of seamen to determine the bona fides involved, that we are not so particular whether the deck hand is the most competent deck hand that sails the sea. We examine him to determine primarily if, in our opinion, that man is going out on that ship or under our regulations will reship in 60 days, the time allowed. We do not examine them primarily from an occupational status standpoint. We examine them from an immigration status standpoint. Namely, is he going to go out or is he going to desert? We distinguish between the bona fide and mala fide seaman for immigration purposes.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose what we are all interested in now during these depression times, particularly more than ever, as well as when we do have good business, is that we do not want these people coming into this country from any other country, that we have got to take care of. They are coming into this country illegally, I mean. Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. This question of examination of crew in quarantine, we have been unable to see where there is a single bit of difference between an examination of a crew-I mean so far as any legal question is involved, but there is all the difference in the world from a practical standpoint, as explained by Mr. Montgomery-but from a legal standpoint, we have failed to see where there is any distinction between examination of a crew in quarantine or examination of a crew on the way up the river or at the dock. It is contended that there is a difference, but thus far we have been unable to see it.

So far as determining a mala fide seaman, under the present law is concerned, we are just as competent to determine a mala fide seaman as we would be under this bill, because it is purely a factual question and the facts will not be changed by a change in the law. That is all I want to say on that subject.

The CHAIRMAN. Without regard to expense for inspectors, if we can get a better bill than we have got now, we would be glad to pay for more inspectors. The question came up yesterday and Mr. Petersen suggested or asked you the question, under this King bill, whether there would not have to be a great many more inspectors on the job and at the present time under the present law. How is that, Mr. Shaughnessy?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That is correct, we would have to increase our forces, but we would have to increase our forces under our substitute bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Under your substitute bill?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Yes, sir; perhaps not as much, but there would have to be an increase in force.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, Mr. Shaughnessy, with a few possible amendments which came up yesterday in the hearing in regard to charges, you would rather have no bill at all, and let the law remain as it is, than to have either the King bill or your substitute bill?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That is not exactly correct, Senator. We recognize that there is a loophole in this seaman situation, and we want to tighten it up. We would like to have some such bill as our substitute, subject to amendments agreeable to the committee and all concerned without destroying the theory of the bill. But we would rather have no bill than the King bill, if I may say so, Senator, because we feel that some of the provisions of section 3 are unnecessary and unworkable, and it will cause no end of administrative -difficulties, and hardships to human beings.

Senator KING. What proportion of the crews, in numbers, come to ports other than those where you have immigration detention?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. It would be a comparatively small proportion, but large in numbers, because we examine, as you see from our statistics, ordinarily more than 1,000,000 alien seamen a year. The large proportion of them would come to ports where we have detention stations.

Senator KING. What proportion of the alien seamen examined come to the large ports, such as New York, Boston, San Francisco, New Orleans, and those which you characterize as large ports, where you have immigration detention stations?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Offhand, Senator, I would not venture to hazard a guess, but it is the large proportion. There is no question about that. We concede that. New York is the top-heavy port, and then we have detention stations at Seattle, San Francisco, San Pedro, and so forth.

Senator KING. So that if there were mala fide seamen who were detained and subject to removal, under Mr. Furuseth's bill, the number who would be removed at ports where you would have no immigration detention station would be very, very small?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Comparatively small, but in the aggregate large. Then here is another problem which seems to have been over

looked throughout the years: We have to deport these mala fide seamen on vessels. If we can keep an alien on a ship, he goes back and he is the ship's problem, but we would have to get passports for these aliens which we are sending back by other vessels, and we are having all kinds of difficulty with foreign countries today in getting passports. I cited a case to Mr. Furuseth, of the Scandinavian countries, where aliens who have been absent for 10 years. are held to have lost citizenship, and they will not be given passports. Furthermore, they hold that if their citizens leave, with the established intention of not returning, regardless of how brief a period they are absent, they have lost their citizenship and passports will not be issued to them.

Senator KING. What do you do with him?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. We have to release him. We cannot hold him forever when there is no hope of getting a passport, and when the country from which he came will not give us a passport for his deportation. We have that situation today, where we cannot deport them because we cannot establish their citizenship in foreign countries and without establishing their citizenship we cannot get passports, and without passports we cannot deport them.

Senator KING. Do vessels refuse to receive persons subject to deportation without a passport?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. Most decidedly they do.

Mr. PETERSEN. Senator, in one instance we had a man in San Pedro who had been in this country for 15 years, and he was in jail for 6 months, and we brought him to New York, and the Department had to release him. He was a British subject.

Senator KING. I think he should not have been arrested if he had been in this country 15 years.

Mr. PETERSEN. He was, however, and was held there in jail for 6. months.

Mr. EWERS. We have had about 12 or 18 very troublesome cases, Senator, and the difficulty is in getting the seamen to give you sufficient data, subject to confirmation, to establish his national status. The last one we had was down here in Norfolk and he did not know where he was born, and his earliest recollection was being in an orphanage, and we were subsequently unable to get a travel document for him and the Department, recognizing the injustice, took action, I believe, not to cancel the order for deportation, but they released him on his own recognizance in the hope that perhaps at some later date they might be able to establish his national status. so that they could get rid of him. We have had considerabie difficulty, particularly in recent years, with that class of case. Senator KING. Have you anything further?

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That is all we have to offer.

Mr. EWERS. Might I interject this further thought: While it seems: to be the predominant thought that this situation arises chiefly at New York, we have one or two ports, particularly Norfolk, which I have in mind, which, as far as seamen are concerned, is in this situation, namely, that vessels call for fuel, and that raises the percentage of seamen at small ports more than would appear by the volume of commerce conducted by the ports. That is one of the principal coaling ports of the world, and under this act various provisions. would apply at Norfolk.

Senator KING. Where they come in just for coal, they are really not regarded as having entered the port, and, therefore, this bill would not apply.

Mr. EWERS. If you arrive and leave within 24 hours, that is true, but sometimes it is not possible to do that. You will notice that under your bill, Senator, some sections refer to vessels arriving, and some sections refer to vessels entering, and the language is not uniformly consistent. In Harrison against Vose, I believe it was, a Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court used some 40 to 50 pages of its decision in trying to determine what "enter", "arrival and so forth, meant within the meaning of the navigation laws, so that those terms have an adjudicated meaning, in which they are apparently not used in the draft of measure which is under consideration. Senator KING. That is all the Labor Department has to say? Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. That is all. We are on record on the matter, of course.

Senator KING. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the State Department proceed, if they have anything to say.

The CHAIRMAN. You referred to Mr. Furuseth, and he suggested in section 2 two amendments at the end of the first line, "Every alien employed on board of any vessel, domestic or foreign "-and that runs through the bill the same. Then at the end of the second line," arriving in the United States from any place outside thereof, except vessels coming into port solely for fuel.'

If they come into port for fuel, that eliminates them from the provisions.

Mr. EWERS. Does that eliminate the distress provision?
Senator KING. It would apply to that as well.

The CHAIRMAN. It would be the same thing.

Senator KING. They may come in for fuel, and may come in for distress, and not be within the spirit or the letter of the law. Mr. EWERS. How about supplies?

The CHAIRMAN. It would be the same, would it not?

Mr. EWERS. It is not shown.

Mr. PETERSEN. Even if they come in for fuel and remain over 24 hours, they must enter, regardless of how long they stay.

The CHAIRMAN. This bill can be further amended. You can say "fuel and supplies or distress."

Mr. FURUSETH. They never stay any more than that.

Mr. PETERSEN. Yes; they do.

Mr. SHAUGHNESSY. During a coal embargo 10 or 11 years ago at Norfolk there must have been 200 ships lying out of the harbor, all of which stayed over 24 hours.

The CHAIRMAN. We might talk over at this time two or three items which came up yesterday.

Senator KING. Let us go through with the testimony first.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to ask some of these witnesses those questions first.

Mr. Carr, you are interested in section 7 of the King bill?

Mr. CARR. Yes, sir; section 7 of the King bill and the bill as it passed the House.

56378-34-4