The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Efficient Merchant Marine (Continued from Page 25) World Economic conference deter- mined to launch a vigorous offensive against the American merchant ma- rine. For months the shipping board has been preparing the case for American shipping. Nearer home we encounter a more disquieting form of opposition to our present merchant marine policy. Some of our lawmakers—and a féw persons not in public life—argue that the federal expenditures so es- sential to the support of American shipping constitute an unnecessary drain on the public treasury. The ef- forts of the administration to balance the federal budget—and I take it for granted that every patriotic citizen supports that laudable endeavor— are used as an argument in justifica- tion of proposals to re-examine and revamp the national shipping policy as laid down in the merchant ma- rine acts of 1920 and 1928. In proposals of this sort there is grave danger of becoming ‘“‘penny wise and pound foolish.’’ One is tempted to believe that Americans who seek to do away with the pres- ent subventions fail to realize the magnitude of the work already ac- complished, the great financial stake involved, and the obvious fact that the nation’s future welfare depends in great measure on its commercial strength at sea. They should be reminded that the United States, with a shoreline of 15,000 miles, boasts more than 150 seaports which engage in foreign trade: that federal, state, and municipal authorities have expended for seacoast harbor and channel im- provements upwards of $600,000,- 000; that a survey recently complet- ed for the shipping board by the army engineers shows that the value of American seaport water terminals, utilized wholly for foreign trade, is nearly $1,000,000,000; that our ship- yards alone represent an_ invest- ment in excess of $100,000,000 and could not be replaced today at any- thing like that figure; and that the book value of our overseas merchant fleet has recently been estimated at $628,000,000. Important Progress Made Are we to abandon these superb facilities, developed at so great an expenditure of time, thought, and money, and turn the entire industry over to the foreigner? Are we to forego the $300,000,000 which in every normal year accrues to us in freight and passenger revenues through the operation of American ships? Are we to throw out of ma- rine employment thousands of men, afloat and ashore? Are we to saddle American agriculture and industry with the handicap of increased ocean rates and occasionally disrupted service? Are we to entrust the de- 36 velopment of our foreign markets to aliens? And finally, are we to leave the American navy without an adequate number of effective auxilia- ries in time of national peril? Unless we can honestly give af- firmative answers to these questions we should dismiss as unworthy any suggestion that we abolish or curtail the aids granted by congress in be- half of the merchant marine. Among the truths which must be faced in this time of economic dis- location is that the old days when foreign ships monopolized our ocean carrying trade are gone, never to re- turn. Overseas shipping may some day be rationalized on an interna- tional scale. Zones of influence may be agreed upon; trades may be ap- portioned among the nations; rates and charges may be standardized. We can bring that day nearer by holding fast to what we have, with a view to further development of the fleet when prosperous times again return. Meanwhile the amount spent annually in subsidies—approximate- ly $19,000,000 for the fiscal year 1932—-should be looked upon as an insurance premium paid to protect the vast investment which the American people have already made in American shipping and for the promotion of foreign trade. In conclusion, let me say that on March 20 the President of the United States appointed a new ship- ping board. As chairman of that body, it is my pleasure to convey to you the board’s best wishes. We have a feeling that the American mer- chant marine needs your moral and material support, and that you in turn are not unmindful of the great help that American shipping can be to you in your efforts to blow the breath of life once more into inter- national trade. The Leviathan Sails Because of the great expense of op- eration, with no corresponding possi- bility of increased revenue, it is un- derstood that officials of the United States line have requested permis- sion from the shipping board to lay up the LEvIATHAN until there seemed to be need for her service. It was pointed out that operation of the LEVIATHAN during the winter months had meant a loss on each round trip of from sixty to one hundred thou- sand dollars. The proposal is, there- fore, a measure of direct economy. However, it was definitely settled that the LevriATHAN should sail on April 25 as scheduled. Her west- bound voyage from Bremen will com- mence On May 5. After that the con- tinuance of the LEVIATHAN in sServ- ice, though nothing definite has been settled, will probably depend upon the conditions of business and the de- mand for passenger accommodations as the season progresses. MARINE REVIEW—May, 1933 European Shipping Up (Continued from Page 19) the Kylsant group by the government after the armistice. Although she was built in these unusual circum- stances, and has been British for many years, she would have been liable to a 20 per cent import duty if she had been transferred to Brit- ish scrappers, so the work had to go to Holland and the employment was lost. But the really Gilbertian part of the matter is the fact that the steel taken from her comes into the country free. Shipowners Disagree on Subsidy There is as yet no sign of agree- ment between British owners as to the advisability of asking a subsidy of the government in order to com- pete with subsidized foreign ship- ping, and Germany seems to be in precisely the same boat. Their ship- ping is quite as hard hit as our own but, like the British, the average German shipowner is opposed on principle to state aid which he al- ways associates with state interfer- ence with his business. The Soviet government of Russia is still complaining bitterly of the inefficiency of its transport services, both sea and rail, and is awarding prizes for improved efficiency. The motorship Fer1x DzERSHINSKI, running between Leningrad and London, has won the first prize with marks 6.5 per cent above the efficiency de- manded. The idea is good in parts for while it undoubtedly gets better work it creates very bad feeling in the ports ete., whose workers are blamed for poor results, and under Russian conditions this means fric- tion between departments. In the world of shipbuilding the Russian government is also dissatis- fied, but still continues with the most optimistic proclamations. Ship- building is one of the weakest points of the first five year plan, where it was far behind schedule in practical- ly every branch, although the work- manship was good. The diesel en- gineering department was particular- ly backward and in spite of the large sums spent by the Soviet gov- ernment on engine plants they were forced to get a number of their new engines abroad, principally from Germany. Yet in the second five year plan they have reckoned on diesel electric propulsion which would seem to accent the difficulty. In the meanwhile they are buying a few steamers and motorships on long credit abroad, which is a direct ad- mission that they have been de- feated in their great aim to make their merchant service entirely Rus- sion in every particular. Yet in spite of this they have confidently published their aim to be the second maritime power in the world by the end of the third five year plan.