New Britain herald., 1928-01-30
ONE MAN CONTROL OF SHIPPING BOARD

o1NI -U.N~N NO1NlNO1I
 OF SHIPPING BOARD
 President Coolidge continues hay ing difficulties with the Shipping Board, and considering the Pres ident's adamant attitude, this is not surprising. Congress is threatening to pass the Jones merchant marine bill with view toward checkmating the President, | portion of the bill providing that before government ships could be sold to private firms the decision of the board would have to be unanimous.
 The President wants no such troublesome situation. He favors get ting rid of the ships, and by a mere majority of the board if necessary. For . considerable time the plan has been to load up the Shipping Board with men who agree with the Pres ident, the trouble being. however, that they have not stayed put" When they get on the board they quickly find that the inside view is different from that easily acquired on the outside.
 If the Jones act is passed one man on the board objecting to the sale of ships can block the plans. That is what Congress wants in view of the tendency of the chief executive to load the board with men who will carry out his wishes. The President says the Jones act contemplates 'one man rule" of the Shipping Board: Congress claims that the presidential system amounts to the same thing, with the President be- ing the man ruling it.
 As We see it, the Shipping Board. and not the President, was to run, operate. sell, or retain. the govern ment ships. We rather think the chief executive would do well to ex- press his opinion when occasion de- manded, and if the Shipping Board sees fit to act differently, that is their business. That was the original object of Congress. Whatever blame is to be attached to the shipping business devolves upon the board and Congress. The President is in sisting upon too much in this mat ter and Is too much desirous of run ming the boards business. If it is q question of one-man control, that might as we'll be on the board and in the interest of conservative dis posal and operation of ships. rather than in the White House.
 The federal shipping situation of fers less to worry about as the years pass. Operating losses are consistent ly diminishing. The losses of the Merchant Fleet Corporation, the name adopted year ago when the Emergency Fleet Corporation was changed, were less than $16,000,00o, although approximately 2,2oO,OoO more freight tons were carried that year than the year before. In 1924 the losses were $41,000,000. It is probable that within a few more years the losses will entirely dsap- pear. At such a time the President and the administration generally is trying to force a too-rapid disposal Of the ships, usually at ridculously low prices to private firms. Such action practically would amount to subsidy to the firms buying the ships for the proverbial song.
 It is unfair to charge the grand spree of shipbuilding during the war, and it's amazing costs, against the federal ship policy. The net ap- propriations from 1916 to 1926 amount to the grand and impressive total of $3,5S3,772,762. As General Dawes told a congressional commit tee, the price of winning war is no fair estimate Of efficiency, or words 10 that effect. Everybody knows that money was wasted; but there wasn't time to haggle over such minor details. This period has been over for nine years, and we still 1 have a merchant fleet that is large | enough for the demands of trade On July 1 we still had S22 vessels in commission, of G.4S2.S6S dead weight tons, and 70 auxiliary craft.
 The Shipping Board has been functioning efficiently; it's responsi- bilities have been enormous. It does not require constant tinkering from the administrations.