The Pensacola journal., 1920-02-20

land composite vessels, 20, of dead
weight tonnage of S4,S79: tugs, ana
barges. 1. The total dead-weight tom
mage of all those ships was 2lf,zoI'
! and $40, 1926 appears to nave
have been the purchase price for those
ships already sold, and some OF the
| ships we're of a tonnage OF 7,46z, S,4o",
Otis. 7455, and so forth, but most o.
them were small vessels"
| Mr.. Brandegee. WAS not the sem
ator able to get any action on ms
resolution"
| Mr.. Fletcher: NO; no action has
| been taken because, in the first place
NV understanding has been that the
shipping board had not decided upon
= the policy of disposing of the ships;
! that they were rather waiting Tor ac-
ton by congress to determine what
| course they should pursue. In fact'
they said to US that they were open
minded about it; that they had not
concluded that they ought to dispose
of those ships or to cease operating
the ships. They said they would leave
that question to congress TO settle anu
T thought matters were rather IN
s+atu quo with reference to that policy
until the hearings were concluded.
We have been expecting to call the
shipping board before us, but they
have asked that others should be
heard first and then they will come
and give their views. have never
understood that there was a definite
policy determined upon by the ship
ping board
AR Brandegee. THE senator I'M
derstands that if they sell these yes
sells that is the beginning Of some
policy?'
Mr.. Fletcher. 'It seems to me So
and it seems to me thai the only
theory upon which this sort of sale
can be based at all is the theory that
the shipping board favors the govern
ment going entirely out of the busi-
ness, both the building and the oper-
ating and owning of ships, 1 do not
agree with that policy.
Mr. Smith, of Georgia. But as to
the whole number of ships. the SEN
ator is opposed to the sale?
Mr. Fletcher. Il am utterly opposed
to that: / think it would be a serious
mistake. 1 do not think five years
will be too long for us to figure on
as a time when we shall determine the
whether or not it will permanently
Mr.. President, as 1 stated at the
outset. the main question is, What
is going to be the policy of the gov
ernment? My position is that we have
reach the point where we are in a
condition to determine that policy. We
do need passenger ships in connection
with the cargo ships; for instance, in
the trade with the South American
ports, of Rio Janeiro and Buenos Aires.
The people of South America so to
Europe because they can cross by
four or five different lines in Is
days. They can sail from Rio Janeiro
TO Genoa or from Rio Janeiro to Eng
lish ports in about 15 days on the
best kind OF passenger ships. and the
result is they go to Europe and they
trade with Europe. l do not know of
a passenger line affording proper ac-
commodations between the United
States and South American ports,
and the time required for the voyage
is about four weeks.
we need passenger lines as well
as cargo lines. The one supplements
and cooperates with the other. We
need 10 balance our fleets; we can
not have an adequate merchant ma
rine based entirely on cargo ships
but in in my judgment, we need some
passenger vessels. The shipping board
has been discussing for some time
past whether or not they would build
passenger ships. In fact. they are now
building 26 ships for passenger busi-
ness. The ships they have hereto
fore built are cargo vessels; and
right now, when they have some pas
senger ships, they can put them on
these routes without interfering at all
with private lines. There is no need
of interfering with private lines in
the transatlantic trade, but we do
need passenger ships in connection
with our cargo ships if we are going
to do business with our friends, es- !
pecially in South America.
1--WE can get back some of the ex-
ira cost that we put into these ships
il we will operate them Alright, and
the board are operating them, I think
successfully. They have made a lot
of mistakes. There is no doubt about
that. They have had some difficult
ties: but still the ships are valuable
and are earning money and, of course. |
the price is good now; but the fact
that the price happens TO be good is |
no reason why the government should |
sell the ships. In my judgment, the !
price is going to be good for years |
to come.
"The British lost 10000, 900 tons of
during the war. They have
ouilt only about 100000 tons per
annun. That is about all they can
build. Japan can not build over
100000 tons a year. France can not
build more than 100000 tons a year.
It is going to take time to restore
he worlds tonnage to the point at
which it was in 1914. and during this