The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1914-08-08
THE SHIPPING QUESTION


is now anticipated, it is certain Il
bring a clearer vision and a more
purposeful consideration of mer
chart marine policy.
For many years our foreign trade
has increased while the merchant
shipping under our own flag has
decreased. Today, with four billions
IN annual foreign trade, we have
almost no American bottoms ir
which to carry it. We pay tribute
to the maritime countries every
where for carrying our imports
hither and our exports hence.
The argument has been that "if
the foreigner could do it cheaper he
ought to be given the job" has sud-
denly lost its force. The foreigner
cannot do it cheaper. He can
not do it at all. He hopes that
later he will be able to undertake it;
but this stupendous fact suddenly
stares US in the face:
THE AMERICAN FLAG TODAY
OFFERS GREATER SECURITY
TO COMMERCE THAN ANY
OTHER FLAG ON EARTH.
We dare not trust our shipping
to the foreigner. He cannot protect
and command respect for it as we
coulc do.
Yet we have no ships eligible to
sail under the one flag that we could
trust
That is a situation to demand at
tention; and it is getting it.
Congressman Hardy of Texas,
long close student of this shipping
problem, yesterday introduced a
bill which, while not attempting to
handle the whole problem, deals with
one phase of it 10 a sensible way.
1t provides that vessels of foreign
build, but American registry, may
hereafter carry cargo between
American ports, when on voyages
between American and foreign
points.
At present, for purposes of ex-
PLANTATION, a vessel of this class from
Liverpool to Galveston would not be
permitted to stop at New York or
any other American port and take
on shipments for Galveston. On the
way back from Galveston to Liver
pool, it would not be allowed to dis
tribute freight to points along our
coast. 1t can do business only with
one port. Mr.. Hardy proposes to
remove this restriction and permit
these vessels to do a coastwise bust
ness among our ports, incident to
the voyage between American and
foreign ports.
Mr.. Hardy has long maintained
that there are just two proper ways
to develop the American merchant
marine. One is to permit full
American registry to ships. wherever
and whenever built; the other, to
have the Government buy, build, and
operate a merchant marine.
1t being now pretty thoroughly
established that this country will not
stand for subsidy, Mr.. Hardy is
about right. 1t costs about twice
as much to buy an American-built
ship as a foreign-built one. But the
buyer of the American ship gets no
benefits to compensate him for his
excessive expenditure: he has the
world to compete with as soon as
he goes into foreign trade. So he
leaves the American ship. buys a
foreign one, puts q foreign flag on
it, and saves his money.
AS a result we have, so far as the
foreign trade is concerned, no ships
and no shipbuilding. We have ship
building and ships for the coastwise
trade, simply because that is an
American moropo!y; foreign vessels
may not engage in it at all. Mr..
Hardy would remove part of the re-
strirtion against that participation.
1t is easy enough to understand
why the shipbuilders want the old
law unchanged. 1t gives them a
monopoly of building ships for the
coastwise trade. 1t is not quito so
plain why the shipoWner cares. The
real reason is that the shipowner
wko has bought vessels at high
American prices, doesn't want cheap
foreign-brilt ones admitted to COM
pete with him.
The American-bhilt ship has a
monopoly If domestic trade; there
fore our flag flies over that shipping.
The American flag must compete
with q world-full of cheaper vessels,
the minute it goes into foreign trade;
therefore it doesn't go into foreign
trade.
A half-hearted permission to
foreign-built vessels to assume
Ar.nr,oan ra1;Sfru MN aYtanlaI -,