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

Marine Review FOUNDED 1878 SHIP OPERATION : Volume 64 Shipping Code Opposition Is Not Well Founded EN months have now gone by since the fel tees of the preparation of a general shipping code covering the operations of all elements of water-borne commerce of the United States under all flags. Several proposed drafts, worked out as the result of long and unremitting labor on the part of men of char- acter and intelligence, thoroughly experienced in all branches of practical operation have been presented and discussed in many conferences and at several public hearings. And yet the present outlook for approval of a code for this industry is decidedly unfavorable. It was confidently expected that approval of a master code would quickly follow the last public hearing held in Washington, April 26- 28, but opposition on the part of those groups who prefer freedom to cut rates without let or hindrance, has again balked the preponderant majority of the industry who desire fair com- petition. Why should not the principles of fair play be applied to the shipping industry? It is inconceivable that the apparent moment- ary selfish advantage of a few should be al- lowed to block a measure so urgently needed for order and fair dealing and so vital to the welfare of the industry as a whole. In his ad- dress before the Cleveland Propeller club on May 22, Ira A. Campbell suggested that it is far better for the industry to provide for self regulation under a code, with adequate govern- mental supervision and control than that the industry should be plunged into absolute gov- ernment regulation. If the industry is unable to regulate itself, governmental regulation is the last refuge; and the next step, if one be- comes necessary, will be in the direction of government ownership of transportation facil- ities. “Of one thing I do feel certain,” said Mr. SHIPBUILDING . June, 1934 CARGO HANDLING Number 6 Campbell, ‘‘there must be regulation if there is to be prosperity. Without prosperity there will be no private building of ships.’’ The principal objection to the proposed gen- eral code centers on article 8 covering stabiliza- tion and regulation of rates, fares and charges. We do not believe these objections are justi- fied on any basis of injury to any individual or company preferring order instead of chaos. Section 1 of that article clearly states that each division and subdivision of the code may pre- scribe rules and regulations and minimum rates, fares and charges applicable to members. This is clearly a case of self-government. Section 2 of article 8 makes it perfectly plain that no arbitrary action can be taken in fixing minimum rates. Provision is made for a tempo- rary reduction of minimum rates in an emer- gency and that this can be done without pre- vious notice to the administrator, it being nec- essary only that such reduction shall be imme- diately reported to him. As to any other change in minimum rates prescribed under any divi- sion or sub-division code, it is provided that 30 days notice shall be given to the administrator, who, if substantial protest against the proposed change is made, may order a public hearing on such change. If no such protest is made the proposed change becomes effective at the end of the 30 days notice unless expressly disap- proved by the administrator. The shipper is also fully protected by the provisions of section 3 of article 7 and by ar- ticle 8. Under these provisions any shipper or any other responsible person or group charg- ing that any rate, fare or charge, rule, regula- tion or practice is unfair or unreasonable, will be heard and if the complaint is sustained the action objected to will be suspended. It is to be hoped that a satisfactory agree- ment on a shipping code will soon be reachec so that this industry, like others, may be pro- tected from practices inimical alike to shipper and shipowner. MaRINE Review—June, 1934 9