OCEANOGRAPHY IN THE UNITED STATES 241 



We returned to Woods Hole in 1956, and we had a record of con- 

 tinued activity in fishery research, and I felt many things were ac- 

 complished. 



Due to the men's wages and conditions of employment, which I 

 felt were the worst I had seen in many years of going to sea, I 

 talked with the officials, but had difficulty in accomplishing anything. 

 I felt for their safety, and the safety of the Government equipment. 

 I felt it was desirable that there be cooperative agreements between 

 the Government and the union. The men asked me if I would join 

 the union, and I saw no reason why I shouldn't. From that time on 

 there was a hostile attitude toward me and the Albatross. 



As to the seaworthiness of the vessel 



Chairman Miller. Before you go into that. Captain, what form 

 did this hostile activity take ; can you give something specific ? 



Captain Beatty. Yes, sir. On occasions when I went to the office 

 I couldn't be seen except by the second in command and secondly he 

 told me as master I should have set an example to the men by not 

 joining this organization. Thirdly, he stated the boss, meaning Dr. 

 Graham, didn't think too kindly of it, and he questioned whether 

 I should stay on. 



However, up until October we did a good job, from January to 

 October. In August I had a chance to go back to the merchant 

 marine. I went to the office and told them since I was not on a 

 steady appointment I thought I should leave. They told me, "Don't 

 leave. Captain ; the job is yours." 



In January I got a 3-month extension of my appointment. We 

 proceeded to sea and in October 1956 were ordered to the shipyard in 

 Chelsea for further work to make the vessel seaworthy. There it was 

 anticipated a Coast Guard certificate of seawothiness would be issued 

 so the vessel would come under the American classification. In Chel- 

 sea I went through the work list and left some out for budgetary rea- 

 sons. 



But there is one item that stands in my mind today. I was con- 

 cerned with the misuse of funds, or waste of money for the installa- 

 tion of a winch, which I strongly advised the office not to install, 

 although it had been bought a year prior to that and paid under notes. 



On the installation of the winch, that cost several thousands of dol- 

 lars, they pulled the decks out and installed it in the hold. The winch 

 itself was very costly, and furthermore, to be installed in the forehold, 

 which violates every safety practice I have known since I have been 

 going to sea, I told them that would render the vessel unseaworthy. 

 They also decided to cut down the coaming to 3 inches, which would 

 automatically make the vessel unseaworthy, to run wires out of a hold, 

 because quite often we have heavy seas which come aboard and fill 

 the foredeck completely. The Coast Guard came aboard and said the 

 forehold coaming could not be cut down, and I told them the winch 

 could not be operated due to the length of the wire and the number 

 of turns that would be involved. 



I told the Coast Guard the vessel did not comply to the international 

 rules. I mentioned this twice and I was told by the office I was never 

 to contact the Coast Guard relative to the vessel or the personnel. 



However, we went to the shipyard and in order to comply with law 

 and maintain the integrity of the vessel the Coast Guard did agree 



