but, leaving that aside, is there any additional obligation imposed upon the shipowner by this convention that does not now exist? Mr. TAYLOR. Not outside of that.

Senator OVERTON. So, if we implement it, we are not doing any injustice to the shipowner, and we are not doing any injustice to the seamen ?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is right. The thing is to get a common ground of understanding of what is the best kind of protection, and whether or not one industry wants to be left outside of that protection, irrespective of whether the shipowners are satisfied, or whether the laboring men are satisfied, what is the best thing to do under a compensation act.

Senator OVERTON. You may proceed with your statement.

Due,

Mr. TAYLOR. At the time the hearings were held by the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries during July 1939, the industry set forth in detail the reasons for such legislation. however, to the shortage of time before the close of the session, and believing that some implementing legislation was immediately essential, the House passed the stop gap H. R. 6881, with the committee reserving for future consideration the question of workmen's compensation.

At the outset I believe I should state who are the parties at interest for and against the bill. Enactment of a workmen's compensation law for seamen, in my opinion and the opinion of all impartial experts on the subject, will be of infinite advantage to seamen and a somewhat lesser advantage to the shipowners. The sole persons adversely affected by the enactment of such a law would be the so-called personal injury lawyers. In evaluating the arguments presented by such lawyers the committee should weigh their objections with the fact that they are pleading for the continuance of their present businesses. Insofar as objections are made by seamen's unions, the committee will, of course, realize that such unions are acting upon the advice of these same lawyers who will be adversely affected by the passage of the law. In fact, at the House committee hearings these lawyers appeared on behalf of such unions, but their real clients were themselves. It is hardly to be supposed that union personnel would be experts on such intricate subjects as workmen's compensation, and their following advice of interested attorneys results from lack of knowledge of the true facts.

Senator VANDENBERG. You are saying that they are misled by their own counsel?

Mr. TAYLOR. Undoubtedly, and I can go back into the history of many, many years, as being one of those who lost the benefits of common-law action before compensation laws went into effect in the States. I have been through it. It is not only now, it is a history of 40 years that we have had those troubles. You have them today in almost every other kind of an endeavor, and that we all know, and that was what we have been trying to remedy, in order to make sure that the person who is injured gets every dollar that belongs to him, and medical treatment besides; and that he doesn't have to pay anybody a cent to make that recovery.

Senator RADCLIFFE. You say these lawyers have advised these unions to oppose this bill. What arguments have these lawyers advanced with the unions?

Mr. TAYLOR. I think, Senator, that you will hear many of those arguments presented in the course of the hearing, and they point out to those who have sometimes a doubtful claim, as to commonlaw action, that it is better to start that action with the chance of getting more than they would under a compensation, and in a great many cases it has turned out that it has been a total loss.

Senator OVERTON. Now talking about the attorneys' fees in connection with the settlement of claims, it strikes me that the compensation statute would also be of some benefit to the shipowners, because they will not be compelled to employ lawyers to handle so many litigated cases, and the compensation that the shipowners would have to pay lawyers would be less than is paid now?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is perfectly right, Senator.

Senator OVERTON. I think it would operate to the benefit of both of them, as far as expenses are concerned.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.

Senator OVERTON. In other words, my experience with compensation statutes has been, and I have been a lawyer for 30 years, that the compensation statute is a much less expensive method of settling claims than under the general law of tort, or under any other law, whether it be the Jones act, the Employers' Liability Act, or any other statute.

Senator WHITE. Hasn't that been one of the underlying purposes of the compensation acts, to assure certainty of payment?

Senator OVERTON. Certainty of payment, and payment in all cases where the accident arises out of and in the course of employment. Senator WHITE. And to avoid the delays and the expense of litigation?

Senator OVERTON. That is correct.

Mr. TAYLOR. And there is no defense on the part of the employer, he has got to pay.

But I was going into that point, that I desired to point out, too, that the seamen's attorneys are not the only offenders; many attorneys engaged in the practice of defending claims for injuries against ship operators may possibly be also opposed to the bill for the same reasons of self-interest. The statistics which I shall present and which will be presented by succeeding witnesses will clearly show to the committee the economic advantage of workmen's compensation to the

seaman.

At the risk of probably repeating some testimony that has already been given to the House committee, I just want to very brifly outline the considerations in favor of such legislation that we have under discussion at this time.

The first workmen's compensation act in the United States was adopted by the Federal Government in 1908 for the class of Government civil employees engaged in hazardous occupations. This law was extended in 1916 to cover all Federal employees, and there was established the United States Employees Compensation Commission which now administers not only the law with respect to compensation for Government employees but also the private employers' compensation act for the District of Columbia and the Longshoremen's and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act. The first State compensation law was adopted by Wisconsin in 1911, and was fol

248845-40- -7

lowed rapidly by compensation laws in other States so that we now have compensation laws in every State except Arkansas and Mississippi.

When the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act was first drafted, it included seamen, but they were finally excluded from the provisions of the act. In reporting the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act from the House committee, seamen were included, with these very pertinent observations of the committee:

The bill has also been amended so as to provide the benefits of compensation to seamen, or, to use the language of the bill, "to masters and members of the crew." As to this class of workers, the bill provides that they are to receive compensation, in addition to their right to maintenance and cure, and wages to the end of the voyage as now provided by maritime law.

Senator OVERTON. You are quoting from the report of a number of years ago?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is right, to show that the same kind of principles were established at that time, that we have been trying to finally agree upon during the last 10 years.

Continuing the observations of the committee:

The principle of workmen's compensation has become so firmly established that simple justice would seem to require that this class of maritime workers should be included in this legislation. Owing to the peculiar nature and hazards of this employment, however, it is not felt that their ancient rights of maintenance and cure and wages should be disturbed. The situation is met, however, by leaving these rights with the seamen and granting them in addition the benefits of workmen's compensation with a proviso that they shall not receive medical services and supplies when they are receiving the equivalent thereof as cure, and that the amount paid to injured seamen as wages shall be credited against any amount due injured seamen as compensation.

In December 1926 a bill was introduced in the Senate to provide workmen's compensation for seamen, and this committee has on file petitions signed by over 5,000 seamen requesting that they be included in this bill.

The bill as amended, therefore, will enable Congress to discharge its obligation to the maritime workers placed under their jurisdiction by the Constitution of the United States by providing for them a law whereby they may receive the benefits of workmen's compensation and thus afford them the same remedies that have been provided by legislation for those killed or injured in the course of their employment in nearly every State in the Union.

To very, very briefly take that whole statement, it covers the point as raised by Senator White that the reason there may be objection to the seamen going into the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act is on account of the maintenance and cure. You have it in this bill here that covers all the objections made during the past 15 years, to take care of the claims as put forth by those who had the seamen's welfare at heart.

Senator OVERTON. That is a point that I want to emphasize because, since I introduced the bill, I have gotten letters from different seamen and seamen's organizations, protesting against the extension of the Longshoremen's Compensation Act to them, largely upon the ground that it would impair their traditional rights to maintenance and cure, and wages to the end of the voyage, and what I want to emphasize is that this bill religiously conserves all of the rights of the seamen now existing under the maritime law during the voyage. Mr. TAYLOR. That is perfectly right. To use the parlance of the day, this bill here, print No. 4, gives to the seamen all the compensatory rights under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Act, and

more yet besides, because it takes care of the ancient rights of maintenance and cure when a person is paid his full wages until he goes ashore, and then becomes under compensation.

Senator OVERTON. As a matter of fact, the seamen will be the only ones that enjoy these additional rights if this legislation should be enacted, over and above those who are under compensation statutes, whether State or Federal. None of them get full wages, none of them get maintenance and cure, and none of them have any provision that undertakes to provide compensation for them in nonindustrial diseases.

Mr. TAYLOR. As I view it, the proposed compensation plan under discussion at this moment can be summed up as giving to these seamen more, in my opinion, than any other compensation act.

Senator WHITE. Those ancient rights, as we call them, are definitely assured, are they not, by the express language found in section 5 of this bill?

Senator OVERTON. That is correct.

Senator WHITE. At page 9?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes.

Senator VANDENBERG. Are you saying that all the seaman loses is his right to sue after he gets ashore?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is the sum and substance of the whole thing, Senator. It is a question of having your cake and eating it.

We had so much trouble many, many years ago, as all the lawyers know, with common-law actions, having negligence on the part of the fellow servant, and various other things that were set forth, and many of them got nothing. You would have an injury and you would be laid up several months, and in the first place the lawyer, in good faith many times, would take the case and take it into court, and, of course, you wouldn't be able to prove anything, and that was the step that started the compensation acts, and when we got that, it moved throughout the country.

So, as we have pointed out in the record, you have compensation for all industries except seamen, and the reason they don't desire to have it for seamen is that they come back to the common-law action, and, of course, as we experienced many years ago in the land operations, those, of course, then who fought against compensation laws were the so-called ambulance chasers that we had in every part of the country.

Just to divert for a moment, I went into the legislature in 1913 on a foundation and a pledge of compensation, and took part in the enactment of the first compensation law in the State of New York. So that I can look back over a history of years and see what good compensation has done to stabilize the dependents and the injured persons themselves for safety, because the percentage of recoveries in common law is such a minimum as compared with the whole coverage on compensation, that at the end of the road the person gets more care and attention, he gets paid his weekly allowance, his dependents are protected, and everyone along the line is protected except the lawyer who desires to take a case in a common-law action.

Senator OVERTON. And furthermore, the compensation statute, applied to seamen, would make the shipowner responsible in all cases, that is, all cases arising out of and in the course of the employment. Under existing law, the seaman must show negligence on the part of

the owner, but regardless of whether the owner is negligent or not, under the compensation statute the seaman would be entitled to compensation.

Senator WHITE. I should think there would be a peculiar difficulty in the case of an action at law by a seaman for damages in that his witnesses must be scattered all over the world, and I suppose he would have great difficulty in having at hand, at any particular time, members of the crew who might be supporting witnesses for his claim. Do they experience that difficulty?

Mr. TAYLOR. They do, but you will find cases are put over on the calendars, and the records indicate that the actions take anywhere from 7 to 214 months. It is according to the state of the calendars of the courts in the various parts of the country, and many times when the person has started an action, probably in the cases that you think of, Senator, by that time all sides are a little weary about the thing, and that is the travesty of these things, that then the person who is injured accepts a settlement that is not adequate compensation. Who cares about it? The lawyer is interested in getting his fee. If he has an opportunity of settling with the company, he will do so. The company wants to settle it and you have got everybody upset on both sides. There are legal bureaus on both sides that are waiting for that point, and yet at the end of the road they go in and make a small settlement that doesn't pay the injured employee for at least 25 percent of his time. Nobody can ever justify it, not in these days.

In 1928 the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor, actuated by the lack of data with respect to compensation received by American seamen on account of accidents, conducted a study and published its results in bulletin No. 466, Settlement for Accidents to American Seamen. We just went into part of the report to get the real factual data. On page 2 of this report the Bureau summarized the extent of its investigation and of the results found.

Its

In view of the lack of data the Bureau of Labor Statistics undertook a study to determine the actual status of seamen with regard to injuries and recovery therefor. (This is just a very quick picture of what the experience has given.) study covered three points: (1) The physical injury, (2) the compensation received therefor through personal settlement or court action, and (3) an estimate of the compensation which would have been payable if the injured seamen had been covered by compensation legislation similar to that enacted by Congress in 1927 for longshoremen and harbor workers. Accident rates and insurance rates were not included in the study.

Data were completed for 1,195 cases, of which 899 were direct settlements and 296 involved legal representatives for the seamen and the consequent payment of legal fees.

It was found that the average settlement in the 899 cases not involving legal fees was $262.47 per case as compared with the average estimated settlement of $352.56 under the adaptation of the provisions of the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act employed in this study.

That very clearly indicates that compensation in its proper form eventually gets to the injured person more, under that kind of a plan, than it does when you have got to be tempered with legal fees and court action.

Continuing with the quotation:

In the 296 cases involving legal fees the amount of the settlement included the amount paid by the seaman as legal fees. Such information as could be obtained indicated that the cases were taken by the attorney on a contingent fee. This was stipulated as one-half or more than one-half of the amount recovered in 87 percent of the 62 cases in which the fee was learned. The aver