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

guilt in the matter of excessive construction, Great Britain and Irish yards have on the ways more than 300,000 tons of new building. The United States has exactly 14,654 tons. Our con- struction is 2 per cent of the world today. Eng- land has 40 per cent. The British figure in- cludes two large vessels being constructed for one of Mr. Shaw’s own companies, with a third about to be started.”’ Thus in part did Mr. Mooney reply to British criticism of our merchant marine policy. What it comes to, as we see it, is a determination on the part of British shipping men to fight, with all the resources at their command, any devel- opments which may have the effect of altering, even in the slightest degree, the status quo of Great Britain’s position in world shipping, re- gardless of the inherent justice of the desire of the United States, a great mercantile nation, to have a reasonably adequate merchant ma- rine of its own. Protest Navy Yard Ship Construction HE extensive shipbuliding program of ves- sels for the United States coast guard, made possible by the public works section of the national industrial recovery act, was intended, we take it, to give much needed employment to the established private shipyards of the country. In order to spread this work among the great- est possible number of workmen in the indus- try, the public works administrator, in asking for bids for the building of these vessels, re- stricted the hours of labor to 30 per week. Rates-of pay per hour were also increased over those generally paid in the industry, in order to compensate for the shorter working week. A number of private yards accepted these conditions and submitted firm bids, only to find that estimates were received from navy yards for building the vessels on the basis of the prevailing work week in these establishments, of 40 hours and at their regular rates of hourly pay. As a result of the estimates submitted, award has already been made to the Charleston navy yard, Charleston, S. C., for the construc- tion of four United States coast guard harbor cutters Nos. 61 to 64 inclusive. This is manifestly unfair and cannot be justified if it is assumed that the government intends to give equal treatment to all con- cerned. A number of private shipyards have also submitted bids for nine coast guard ocean cruising cutters Nos. 65 to 73, large steel ships. Three navy yards, New York, Philadelphia and Mare Island, also submitted estimates for build- ing these cutters. In all fairness, we feel sure that the public works administrator will give careful consid- eration to the National Council of American Shipbuilders, representing over 90 per cent of the capacity of the shipbuilding industry of the United States, in its protest against the award of the coast guard harbor cutters to the Charles- ton navy yard, and the council’s further protest in connection with the award of the larger coast guard vessels to navy yards. The formal protest of the National Council of American Shipbuilders, which we support in every respect, calls attention to the fact that estimates, submitted by the navy yards, on the basis of 40 hours a week and navy yard wage scales, do not comply with the requirements for private bidders who are operating under a code of fair competition and trade practice approved by the government and in a few instances, in smaller yards, in accordance with the hours and wage rates required by the public works admin- istration. The National Council contends, and rightly so, that award of contracts to navy yards on the basis of estimates—not firm bids—and different hours and wage requirements than those of private yards, is unfair practice and is directly opposed to the purposes of the National In- dustrial Recovery act. Keep the Coast Guard Separate ALK of merging the activities of the United States coast guard with the navy has aroused widespread protest from all sections of the country. The coast guard and the navy should be kept separate. The respective functions of the two services should make this apparent. The coast guard is essentially a service for the protection of shipping. Its additional duties of preventing the violation of the customs laws are complementary to its primary purpose and constitute a regulatory and police function rather than a naval operation. It is all very well to suggest that the merger would not mean the elimination of the coast guard as a separate organization; that it would hold to the navy somewhat the relation of the marine corps, but the conditions are entirely different. Here is a service of a long and fine tradition in the saving of human life and in the protection of property at sea. It can best be developed and strengthened in all its activities by a separate and independent status and those intimately acquainted with the work of the coast guard are now its most ardent defenders. Any need of strengthening or reorganization of the service for greater efficiency can best be accomplished by keeping it an independent agency of the government. 8 MARINE REVIEw—January, 1934