New-York tribune., 1918-03-08
Development ig7 1913

The development of the tonnage question
in 1918 must be investigated upon the basis
cf the figures for the end Of December,
1917. 1t may be assumed that our enemies
will not succeed in impressing into their
service the 100000 tons OF neutral shipping
still remaining either laid up in neutral
rcrts or sailing in the Baltic. Furthermore
there are no indications that the states still
neutral will yield to the enticements and
threats Of foes and enter the war on
their side. Accordingly, there are no fur
ther sources from which the Allies can get
additional tonnage. Their only recourse is
to build new ships for their commercial
fleets.
The building output Of England and the
United States for 1918 has already been
stated. In addition to their construction
we assume a monthly addition OF 10000
tons for other countries. Over against tn ss,
gains must be set the losses through nat.
ural causes, Withdrawals of ships no longer
seaworthy, and war sinkings, which last
may be placed at $4,000 tons monthly.
Moreover. loss of efficiency incident upon
sailing ships together under convoy may
be assumed at 10 per cent at least The
estimates Of English experts range between
28 and 60 per cent. Even if the estimated
average Of $4,000 tons Of war sinkings
should not be fully maintained, there arc
st,li such large margins Of safety in our
estimates of rev construction and natural
losses and Withdrawals that the computa-
tion made below cannot be far wrong.
Let us first look at the tonnage sailing
for England, France and Italy, inclusive OF
all the tonnage required for military pur-
poses, which do not admit of any contrac-
ton. We get the following half-yearly
figures:
Gross Tons
February l, 1917 .......... 24,65ooo0
January l, l9lS .............. 100000
July /, 1918 .......... 1751OnO0
December 3l 1918 .. 15.41o.ooo
In order to obtain a full view Of Tie
situation it is necessary TO consider .ha
import trade to be handled by this tonnage.
In ascertaihiNg it VIC must take account
of English official statements, according to
which 60 per cent Of the tonnage at hand
IS demanded for military purposes and car
rles imports for civilian consumptior in
only insignificant quantities. For the mill
tary requirements of France and Italv a
much smaller percentage of TONNAGE with
drawn for military requirements has been
assumed i'll the following computation. The
estimate assumed is very favorable to the
other side
The tonnage remaining to England.
France and Italy for commercial act:vitv is
thus estimated:
Gross Tons
Feoruary /, 1917 .............. 15.3oO,0o0
January /. 1918 ......... 12.7oo 600
July l, 1918 ............ 10000. .0o0
december 81, 1918 .......... $4,000
Tie imports carried by this tonnage, and
Its percentage of that carried on Febru-
ary /, 1917, may be stated thus:
Metric PC. of
Tons Feb T. 'lS
February 1, 1917 500. 10000, ,ooc -
January l, 1913 7oooo,Ooo 77.7
July /, 1918 ......... 59,oo0,ooO o5.5
December 81, 1918. As,5o0,o2o 53.e
If one considers the already existing
shortage OF imported goods in England ard
i'S consequences one can easily
understand what must be the effect of the
further restriction expressed in the above
figures.
Ihe figures used in this investigation arc
based upon official material, upon @hc most
trustworthy existing sources and upon the
Judgment or reports of leading experts.
upon such a solid basis we can assert that
The U-boat acarfore aviN finish the
1rorh which 1t undcrtook to do
NOTE - At a meeting of the So
ciety of Naval Architects, middle Of No-*'
vember. 1917, attended by the directors
OF shipbuilding companies and other cx-
perts, it was stated by Mr.. Powell, vice
president of the Bethlehem Shipbulding
Company, that the output of new con-
struction in the United States in 1917 !
was 100000 tons, and that it would be
100000 tons in 191S.-ED
Here Is the Man Who Knows
To the Editor of The Tribune
Sir: Votes for women gave Tammany tho
election yesterday. Every Tammnny voter,
mar OF woman, votes. The woman voter
will kNen q NJ for.