The Connecticut labor news., 1922-12-08


 Outgoing congressman, it is un- derstood, were offered comfortable jobs if the subsidy went through. Outgoing senators have a similar choice of submission or oblivion No vote-no plums A mess of pottage and bartering of votesl
 The facts and arguments on the measure will be aired in great detail during the Senate discussion The progressive senators who are not in favor of such vicious legislation as the Lasker bill, even though some of them favor constructive govern ment aid to the establishment of a merchant marine, will put up fight that will make history. Every kind of political and social pressure will be exerted against them. The weak will fall, the strong will stand
 The pending subsidy bill will do none of the following things claimed for 1t as basis of vote getting-im- prove wages of American seamen, provide an incentive to shipping, re- duce government expenditure, aid the farmer.
 No Help to Labor
 At the hearings on the bill, Presi- dent Andrew Furuseth of the. Sea mems Union saidin reply to the argu-ss ment that subsidy was needed to compensate shippers for higher wages paid American seamen:
 "As a result of these reductions the wages of American seamen are now much lower than the wages of Canadian and Australian seamen; are practically on a level with British wages; and are substantially higher than the wages only of Japanese among the principal maritime na- tions." ..-...: - :'-''' +,.~
 Although President Harding used the stock labor argument in his ad- dress to Congress to get labor sup port, Chairman Lasker, himself, said during the hearings:
 "I want to take occasion to say here that I think the Seamen's Act has been, one of the most misrepre- sented acts of which I have ever heard l came down to Washington believing, as most people in my part of the country do, if you repeal the Seamen's Act you would have a mer- chant marine. That Is pure bunk"
 The subsidy provides a payment of $II,ooo annually to cargo steamers of 8,ooo dead weight tons that cost any where from $25o,ooo to $I, ,5oo,ooo Such subsidy constitutes no incen- tive to shippers engaged in commerce.
 On the other hand, the subsidy provides large payments to passen- ger steamers. The George Washing ton, for instance, which made a profit of $I4o,ooo on its first voyage, will receive $3oo, 1000 annually from the shipping board, a grant of money 1t does not need. On the other hand, the Pacific mail fleet of I2 ships, do= ing a real business in shipping, will receive only $I5oooo a year.
 May Cost $75,ooo,ooo Yearly.
 President Harding's argument that the ship subsidy will mean a saving to the country of $I5,ooo,ooo is not supported by facts and has been en- tirely shattered by Senator Fletcher and others who have made a study of the problem The present cost of operating the U. s. Shipping Board is $36,ooo,ooo year. Chairman Lasker has himself admitted that the cost of the ship subsidy will total $52,ooo, 900 annually, although Sen ator Fletcher and others Insist that it will reach $75,ooo,ooo annually. The figures don't agree. - Senators and congressman opposed to the ship subsidy insist that the government will be more successful and will benefit the country more by operating it's own ships, instead of contracting them out to irresponsible shippers.
 Great Britain, France and Japan have for years been giving aid to their merchant marines, most ot 1t 1n- directly, and the total contribution of all these countries is now $I7,ooo, 900 annually. The United States has been paying for many years subsidy to mail carrying ships, but this is en- tirely aside from the proposed ship subsidy of $75,oooooo.
 Why Board Loses Money.
 The losses of the shipping board are largely due to the so-called MO4 contract, by which the government guarantees to pay all the losses and, in addition, per cent on all business carried in shipping board vessels. Under this arrangement the govern ment has been holding the bag, while private ships of leasing corporations