The New York herald., 1921-12-12
Aid for American Ships.
Should 1t BE Given by Subsidies OF
by Preferential Duties!

To TIE New YORK HERALD: In your
paper OF December 3 appears an article
from Washington under the headline
Harding VIII Urge Ship Subsidy Need, y
one paragraph Of which says:
One of the obstacles toward preferen-
tial treatment of American vessels by the
Government lies in q series of treaties
negotiated with other maritime nations.
forbidding such action, and although the
merchant marine act of 1919 contains
mandatory instructions that all such
treaties be abrogated President Harding
is expected to inform Congress it Is i'm
possible to enforce that provision of the
law. AZ an alternative TO this 1t is ex-
pected the subsidy policy viii be ad-
venced.
The act in question is the merchant
marine act OF 1920, Section "a. which
in par; declares that in the Judgment
oc Congress articles or provisions ir
treaties or conventions to which the
United States is a party which restric,
the right of the United States" to dis
criminate through customs duties and
Tonnage dues in favor of the goods car
ried in American vessels and the ves'
sells themselves SHOULD be terminated
and the President is hereby authorized
and directed within ninety days after
this act becomes law to give notice tc
the several Governments, respectively
parties to such treaties or conventions
thnt so much thereof as imposes any
such restriction on the United States
will terminate" &c. 1t is very clear
therefore, that it is not intended tc
abrogate the treaties. but merely so &c
modify them as to relieve this country
OF the restraint now imposed in respec;
os preferential customs duties and ton
nago dues.
In preparing his message TO Congress
on December President Harding APP
pears to have misread the provision Of
the merchant marine act OF 1920 in
saying:
Among other things provided 20 en-
courage our shipping on the worlds seas
tho Executive was directed to give no.
t!cc of the termination OF all existing
commercial treaties in order TO admit
OF reduced duties on imports carried In
American bottoms.
There is the greatest difference be-
tween the complete termination of q
scoro or more Of treaties and their modi-
flcatlon in n single particular.
The President in his message speaks
Of "a chaos OF trade relationships" that
would follow the complete abrogation OF
these commercial treaties, which, he
says. would add indescrbably to the
confusion OF the already disordered
commercial world" But the mere mod
lfication of these treaties, such as tine
Jones act provides, would not, l ar
sure. cause the President to predict re-
suits, so serious. Who was conscious
OF the modification in these same treat
les made to give effect to the seamen's
act? There was neither "chaos" nor
Confusion" nor would the modification
the Jones act provides cause any.
When the seamen's act was approved
by President Wilson on March 4, 1915
It contained provision, almost identical
Ia wording, to the effect that II was the
purpose OF the United states 80 to mod
ify these same terminablc commercial
treaties and conventions as to relieve
this country of the requirement of ar
resting seamen deserving foreign ships
In our ports and relieving foreign Gov.
ernments OF the requirement of arrest
ing seamen deserting from our ships ir
their ports The President was directed
to give notice to the nations with which
we have these treaties of such intention
within ninety days, and President Wilsor
did as directed, the treaties were modified
and effect thus was given to the pro
visions of the seamcn's act that abol
ed arrests for desertions from ships
The identity of the two provisions lie'
in the purpose Of this Government tC
modify, not to abrogate. these termina'
BILE trade treaties.
| Between the passage OF the seamen''
act and the expiration of the ninety
days fixed in Section % of the merchant
marine act OF 1920 President Wilson dis
covered that Congress did not have thu
right TO direct his action in matters af'