Norwich bulletin., 1921-10-15

The report that the United States shipping board is busily engaged ln preparing a report to the Iresident recommending that the so-cailed .Iones act-tbe merchant marine act of 1s20-be put into immediate effect reveals a peculiar situation respect ing the status of our merchant ma rine writes A. R. Smith, editor of the Marine Journal. Section 34 of that act directs the President to serve notice on nations with which we have ter
 ninable trade treaties of our inten- tion to free ourselves from the re-
 straint they impose upon us in rees- tablishiug the early successful Ameri-
 can policy of discriminating import du-
 ties and tonnage dues so as to create a preference for our ships in foreign trade. The Jones act was approved by
 President Wilson on June 5, 192O, but
 he refused to give the notice directed
 on the ground that Congress exceeded
 its powers in attempting to direct his action in treaty matters.
 In the Jones act two peculiar points deserve mention As a member of the senate commerce committee President
 Harding participated in the prepara- ton of the measure. In the senate the bill was passed almost unanimously there being no partisan division. The | shipping board already is on record by
 resolution in favor of an extra 10 pel cent. discriminating customs duty or 1 imports in foreign vessels. The ship l ping board plans it has been said, tC 1 discuss the matter of it's report on thi: l subject with the president, the repor' i being prepared at the presidents re- 1 quest The inference is justifiable tha all of the parties to this conference ar' !, in a friendly attitude toward the pro 1 visions of the Jones act in general ana section 34 in particular. It would b. | singular indeed if the upshot did no find the president convinced that h. shouldgive the notices of modification
 of our trade treaties that Presiden | Wilson refused to give.
 The modification of the treaties i
 the manner indicated in section 3
 would not put the discriminating dut policy into immediate effect in m judgment. because existing laws no
 tably the act of May 24, 1928. woul
 prevent. This act clothes the presider
 with power to suspend the collectio
 of discriminating duties when he be
 comes satisfied that other nations d |
 erican ships entering their ports.
 The suspension has become gener;
 under provision of that act. Up { and including the Underwood tari
 l act, from the tariff act of July 4, ITS this policy of discriminating import dr ties has in one form or another bee !, carried; but it's enforcement since IS; has been suspended, generally speakin
 through out doption of trade treatit 5 and laws to that effect. If the ForC l ney tariff should be passed as it can to the senate from the house it woul : not earry-in suspension--these di! : eliminating shipping laws.
 , The need for the restoration of thi ) or some other equally proteetiv 7 practical and enduring policy is tn; this country cannot build ships , normal times as cheaply as they al built abroad, nor can we run shiI : for the national defence and for Il I. 1 finding. holding and developing of fol t eign markets for our surplus produc that we should possess a merchant rns 1 rine of OUT own measurably adequa , to the carrying of our foreign con : merce.
 This country, as I see it. has g 1 to adopt a strong, generously protecti' shipping policy for our ships to pro- [ per and grown in foreign trade, aI