Evening star., 1941-10-09


Friday with statement to the effect
that the British didn't really need
some of the tankers diverted for
their use. This was followed a
couple OF days ago by an announce
ment from the Office of Secretary
1ckes that the British were going
to turn back from 10 to Is tankers
now.
The American people are entitled
to the facts about this eXtraordi-
nary episode not merely because it
will reveal the lack of coordination
and the blundering which has been
behind the handling Of the gasoline
problem but because the facts of
the case are so much more en-
couraging than discouraging with
respect to the future.
For several days it has been
whispered around Washington that
the British were in quandary, that
they didn't need the tankers and
yet didn't feel as if they should be-
come involved in the domestic
aspects of the oil controversy.
Finally Mr.. Moffett's statement
forced action and the British found
themselves unable to hold on to the
tankers any longer.
Little Concern for Future.
The most heartening fact about
the tanker situation is that instead
of an expected sinking of 80 tankers
In the last three months the Ger
mans have sunk six. But, in the
meantime, the British and the
United States have built six new
tankers month. Likewise there
has been a steady improvement in
the tanker operation and, besides,
the new tankers are much bigger
than some hitherto in use. Instead
of 90-day turn the sched-
ule made now is about 70 days. This
Is equivalent to a substantial gain
IN tankers. The increase in total
carrying capacity from the new
tankers and from the old is such
that in the near future the gasoline
problem will be of relatively little
concern.
This does not mean that certain
conservation measures will not be
retained. They should be as
precaution against a turn in the
fortunes of battle on the Atlantic.
But 1t is matter for congratula-
ton to Britain and the United
States that the effective patrol in
the Atlantic has cut down the sink
ings to the point where new con-
struction far outweighs the losses.
There will be tendency to blame
Secretary Ickes for not handling
this matter more effectively but it
Is hardly to be expected that he
would have known last May or June
that the sinkings would be cut
down. He was acting from a pre-
cautionary standpoint and while
the method of imposing conservation
Is open to debate, there can be no
doubt that America is much more
conservation-m minded today on the
use of oil than the citizenry was
few months ago.
Suppression of Facts.
What is depressing about such
things. however, is the way facts
are suppressed, supposedly in the
interest of military necessity. The
exact capacity of the available tank
ers, the efficiency in their turn
around and the progress on new
construction could have been re-
vealed to the American people be-
fore this. Likewise the facts con-
cerning the railroad tank car sit
uation might have been better ex-
planned to the public. Mr.. Moffett,
for instance, declares that there are
2.6 times as many tank cars now
than in 1917 but the amount carried
is supposed to be only twice as much.
He insists that there could be an
increase of 40 per cent in efficiency
and that instead of a surplus of
10000 tank cars there would today
be $4,000 idle tank cars. He insists
that until the special committee of
the Senate began to inquire into
the problem little was done to accen-
tuate the possible use of tank cars
In large numbers.
There is no doubt that official
washington in general sense is to
blame for the bungling. The Pres
ident relies on too many different
agencies in the Government to CO.
ordinate themselves and he does not