New-York tribune., 1921-09-30

10 Z EcSlOSut A1dIOiAS q oPSSAoA ~
port on what, in its opinion, the
Executive authority should do, un-
der the terms Of the so-caned Jones
act, in furtherance of the policy of
establishing Yankee merchant
marine.
We have no cans of knowing, of
course, the contents of that report,
but the dispatches of the Tribune's
Washington correspondent indicate
that among its recommendation are
included the immediate application
Of Sections 28 and "a Of the act men
toned and the inclusion in the pend
ing tariff legislation of "a provision
imposing 10 per cent tax on I'M
portations and expectations in other
than American bottoms. Further,
with regret, we are given to under
stand by our correspondent that the
Shipping Board believes that that
way lies an approach to the solu-
ton of the tremendous problem Of
the United States reentering her
estate. in the seas.
This being true, The Tribune be-
lieves that that way lies not only
disappointment of the nations de-
sire to establish a merchant marine,
but economic disaster. In the ap-
prehension aroused by the reported
views of the Shipping Board we find
ourselves sustained by the knowledge
that President Harding is not one
given to acting hastily and again
that in considering the boards rec
concentrations he will have avail
able in his Immediate official family
the counsel Oft such men as Mr..
Coolidge, Mr.! Hughes and Mr..
Hoover.
In word, Section % of the mer-
chant marine2 act provides for the
allowance of preferential rates by
railroads on freight and passengers
destined for! overseas in American
vessels. Such rates are made sub
ject to the regulation of the Inter
state Commerce Commission, which,
i'll the event that American shipping
is inadequate, is authorized to sus-
pend the provision. Obviously, the
purpose of Section % is to discrimi-
nate in favor of American vessels,
but of what benefit will such dis
elimination be if, having cut our
railroad rates to the bone, the ocean
rates under the flag are higher than
our competitors Has the Shipping
Board thought of the railroads in
connection with the application of
this section? They must live. Again,
has it thought of those who pay the
freight bills? 1t is the consumer
who pays them and it is he who de-
termlnes how his goods shall be
borne, to him. Cargoes and travellers,
as we repeatedly have sought to
point out, all else being equal, seek
ships which charge the least and not
BECAUSE they fly any particular ma
tionB flag. 1t is to be admitted, how
eve1 that Section 20 has the merit
of considering our shipping problem
from an internal aspect rather than
an external one.
Section 81, in our opinion, is, as it
stands, neither sound constitutions
ally1 nor sound in doctrine. Broadly,
it is no more than an expression of
opinion on the part of the Congress,
accompanied by direction to the
Executive authority to make that
opinion his. President Wilson ably
ands we think, soundly resisted this.
So idid President Hayes in a similar
case In his time. 1t would have the
President give notice of the denun-
'eiation by the United States of all
treaties prohibiting the imposition
Of oftdiscriminatory duties or imposts
ons water-borne commerce. 1t seems
tohave been drafted with neither CON
sleeration of our traditional respect
for national engagements of good
faRth nor with an understanding of
the meaning of "the most favored
nation" clause, nor yet again with
the slightest apprehension of the
ecosaomic consequences of the dis
avdwal of such clauses in existing
tressties as well as the discriminatory
res1rictions. The commercial trea-
ties which the United States has
bee9l negotiating since 1894, it must
be remembered, are reciprocal in
spirit as we'll as in fact. What they
preFent this nation from doing to
otlhrs they likewise prevent those
others from doing to us.
Imagine these treaties swept away
as iso many scraps Of paper and the