The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1907-1917, 1915-02-25
PAGE TEN
EDITORIAL NOTES
BY j. I'D. WATSON


will relieve the condition of the Southern
farmers by furnishing vessels to transport our
cotton to Europe-that it is an emergency
measure that will benefit the farmer and only
hurt the Shipping Trust.
But this argument will not hold water
In the first place, the law is only to remain
In force limited time, and after the expira-
ton of that time limit the vessels purchased
by the Government would be sold to private
parties, and the private parties who would
buy them would be the Shipping Trust with
whom they we're competitors under Govern
ment ownership, so the Shipping Trust would
not be hurt one bit.
In the second place, such legislation would
help the cotton farmer very little now, for his
" greatest need for help has long since passed
those who were able to hold have held and
can hold longer, while the little fellow who
most needed help has been driven to the wall
and sold out by his creditors.
Then if the ships that are to be purchased
to relieve the situation are to cost only the
amount provided in the Ship Purchase bill
they would not amount to a drop in the bucket
when it comes to relieving the present high
ocean freight rates.
The present rates are as high In proportion
on wheat, oats, corn, flour, ETC., as they are on
cotton and If government ships commenced
to haul cotton from Galveston, Savannah,
Charleston, Norfolk or New York cheaper
than it is now being carried in foreign bot
toms, don't you know there would be de-
mand for ships for foodstuffs too?
So, if the provisions of the Ship Purchase
bill do not provide for enough ships to even
handle the cotton crop, what would they
amount to when it comes to handling all Of
our crops! '..
Even if the government owned only the 81
per cent of stock proposed and the other 40
per cent was subscribed by private corpora
tons or persons it would still fail to be of
any material benefit because it will take more
ships than the money will buy.
We believe in government ownership, but if
it is good as an emergency measure, why isn't
1t good as a permanent thing?
If we are to 60 into government ownership
of steamboat lines, let us 90 into the business
like any private party or corporation would
90 into it, and, if after it is tried awhile the
venture proves to be a success, let us keep it
in operation hereafter, and operate a suff-
cient number of ships to make us a competitor
with the big steamship companies.
But at this writing the Presidents bill
looks like dead one.
A feeling of lost hope and despair seems to
have taken a grip on the advocates of the Ship
Purchase bill in the Senate, and they are now
at work on appropriation bills-the Ship
Purchase bill being laid aside until Feb 81.
The President seems to have given up the
ghost, as does Senator Kern, the leader of the
Administration forces, and they virtually adj
nit that there is very little hope Of doing any
thing before March 4.
Sec McAdOo processes to still have some
hope, but the wind has been knocked out of the
administrations sails, and it was knocked out
when the seven Democrats who had been sup
porting the bill voted with the Republicans
to overrule the Chair on a question of Par