Evening star., 1943-08-06

point of explain s
ing the new sY
arrange m ent David Lawrence.
whereby from $50 to 200 of oul
newly constructed merchant ships
are to go under the British fiag
during the next several months
1t is true the Prime Minister speaks
of the ships being used in war
time duty" and says that his dis
cussions with President Roosevelt
were confined purely to the war
period, leaving the arrangement
suitable to peacetime settlement
to be discussed at future date"
Mr., Churchill adds that there is
no financial arrangement" but he
refers to the Presidents attitude
as generous arrangement"
But do the British people, and
especially the shipping interests,
know that the United States Mari
time Commission in its public state
ment Of July 27 referring to the
same transaction stated no less than
three times that title will remain
In the United States Governments"
Right of Gift Questioned
Technically, the Maritime Com
missions statement is correct. Title
today is in the United States Gov
ernment, but has the President
agreed with Mr.. Churchill to let title
pass after the war to the British
government, which, in turn, will
give the ships over to the British
merchant marine to be used in COM
petition with the American mer-
chant marine?
Has the President the constitu-
tional right to give away the prop
erty of the United States or to make
an arrangement looking toward the
giving away of any property after
the war is ended. This question
will be answered in the negative by
members Of Congress. 1t is import
ant to bring this matter into the
open now, lest our British friends
be nisled into thinking they have
been awarded gift of 1000, 900 tons
OF shipping.
Mr.. Churchill, it will be noted,
has been under rather severe pres
sure lately to keep his eye on the
postwar shipping problem as 1t af-
fects England. Lord Rotherwick,
chairman OF the Clan Line Steam
ers Ltd. and Associated Companies,
In an article published as recently
as July / in leading shipping
journal In Great Britain, writes:
The situation Is fraught with
great difnculty and is causing ship
owners in this country considerable
concern as the losses of British ship
ping have, as is we'll known, been
considerable and comparatively little
has been possible by way of replace
ment. On the other hand, the
United States of America will end
the war with an enormous increase
of tonnage over that flying their
flag at the outbreak of war. It is
feared that as consequence of this
disparity, the position of British
shipowners may not be adequately
safeguarded by our Government,
notwithstanding that the shipping
industry is one of paramount i'm
portance for the economic existence
of Britain"
Uses Same Argument
Then Lord Rotherwick goes on to
use almost the same language and
argument that appears in the Roose-
velt-Churchill correspondence, to
the effect that the United States
had by agreement concentrated on
merchant vessels while the British
shipyards had concentrated on COM
bat vessels. One might almost draw
the inference that the British ship
yards had built combat vessels for
the American Navy. but this, OF
course, is not the fact.
Finally Lord Rotherwick suggests
rather naive!y that the U. S. Gov
ernment hand over vessels built
under construction or arranged for
under their flag, to their Allies as
necessary to bring up the proper
ton Of shipping owned by them at
the outbreak of hostilities."
No more brazen proposal or any
more selfishly proclaimed has come
across the international seas in
many years. 1t means that America
after all the billions OF dollars spent
In ships, should go back to her pre-
war status and accept as small q
proportion Of world tonnage as she
had before.
Investigation in Order.
1t might as logically be urged that
America give back all the gold she
has acquired in the last decade Sc
as to restore Britain's gold account
and that other property for which
American war loans and taxes have
been spent should be given as a gift
to British commercial interests.
The whole episode should be In
wuv nlD1 q d