WORLD SHIPPING

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 72, 27 March 1933, Page 7

WORLD SHIPPING

THE SUBSIDY POLICY

WAVE SWEEPS AMERICA

ANTI-BRITISH OUTBURST

(From "The Post's" Representative.) NEW YOEK, March 2.

The controversy between Great Britain and the United States on the question of shipping subsidies has reached the stage that American public opinion is being stirred into opposing any reduction of Federal subsidies. It is a matter for regret that the protest of the British Chamber of Shipping and the British Government's pronouncement of its determination to protect its shipping against American subsidies were made just on the eve of Congress dealing with tho Intimates. It is certain that, responding to the demand for economy that was sweeping the country, the shipping subsidies would have been materially reduced. Congress, harangued by those who claimed that Britain was seeking international agreements to the detriment of American shipping, felt it was on its defence, and passed the vote in full.

seven years' residence in! North America have we heard such I an anti-British outburst, which was fanned to fever heat by the reaction j to Mr. Neville Chamberlain's "no concessions" war debt ultimatum at Leeds. Senator Copeland, who led the attack, said, even now, only one-third of j American foreign trade was carried in American bottoms; on the other hand ! Britain carries 60 per cent, of her own I foreign trade in British vessels, and 45 per cent, of the total foreign trade of the entire world. I AMERICA'S VIEWPOINT. Tho /American delegates to the Geneva Economic Committee said the subject was so controversial that little could be accomplished by its discussion. Criticism of subsidies, they averred, would not bo confined to American shipping, but would extend to the shipping of Prance, Italy, and many other Powers, especially "those- which operated lines on the North Atlantic,! which had received Government aid, j in on c form or another. Many of tho I countries, according to shipping exports were less frank than the United States, and did not directly finance shipbuilding. They believe that nothing can be dono at the London Economic Conference which will alter existing contracts and agreements, and that discussion cannot do more than I forco an agreement upon some principles which may be adhered to subsequently in the formulating of inter- j national shipping policy. In this newest outburst, Americans ] are being told that, when European nations build North Atlantic liners, they build them for Americans, as, without their patronage, they could not bo operated commercially. More than 72 per cent, iof tho Americans who Went] abroad last'year travelled in "foreign" j vessels. Americans hold shares in the ! French Line, the North German- Lloyd, I and the Hansa Steamship Line. Ameri- j cans travel by tho Cunard Lino to Havana and tho West Indies in the peak of the season. "Imagine the howl that would go up from Great Britain," says one writer, "if an American company should put its vesels into a purely British Continental service at the peak of the season!" THE FEDERAL AID. By Federal law, knowit as tho JonesWhite Act o£. 1928, shipowners may borrow 75 per cent, of the cost of construction, at a low rate of interest for twenty years, tho average life of a ship. ' Hail contracts for ten-year periods are available. Under this Act, 175,000,000 dollars have been expended for tho construction of forty-two American ships, totalling 500,000 tons, while 250,000 tons of old vessels have beenreconditioned. There are now 600 American vessels, aggregating 3,500,000 tons, operating between sixty American ports in North America and.sso foreign ports. It is claimed that John Doe, American citizen, can travel by an American vessel from or lo any port of tho seven- sens. The paradox is that Mr. Doe prefers a foreign ship. He is now being taught tho error of his ways.