The Evening Star TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1875.

Evening Star, Issue 3846, 22 June 1875, Page 2

The Evening Star TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 1875.

Perspiguity is not an attribute of the Daily Tunes.’ Its most brilliant utterances are not always easy to be understood. In some respects this is fortunate: for misebievous as is the tendency of many of its editorial essays, they might do infinitely greater damage were they commended to public attention through clearness of diction and well-pomted aephistry. Such as some ° f are ’ , however * tho y sometimes com- *° I ? terest e<i classes, or Xir?L° bbay S y are lnß P lred b y them j for on !J®* fao&8 th ?y convey the conviction! that a i 6 of Mr Turn bull’s notion of articles written to order.” We do not the ‘ Mv t? U ?T° emendations in tne Daily Ti mea ’s ’ article of Friday of to B jmK U tbe ® oard Trade addressed !?. surveyors. The revelations ocnwtntly cropping up at Home concerning unseaworthy ships, render it by no means suspnsing that large classes have brought pressure to bear upon that Board, which nas led them to recommend laxity of survey. JNever yet has a reform been effected that was not in the first instance strenuously onposed by those affected, and by officials appointed under existing regulations. Conservjitiflm has been proved in everything to 111 drag upon sound progress. It yields at last, but only after its l og “ a 8 and the practices founded upon h j Ve P false, and their falsehood and hollowness have been laid bare and condemned by society. But much damage is usually dsne before the necessary conviction becomes widespread, and an incentive to action. That the Board of Trade should have ha,d the folly to issue the ci> ‘ a . aS met fc v e approbation of the umiy litres proves that public opinion has not yetjrvasped the true economic view of the trade and commerce of conniving S OW ( f t!li n M in Bhi Ppiog--no matter .ether small coasters ” or large international traders. We consider that the prin- 1 mples laid down are dishonest, false, and tend to the subversion of the very purposes they are professedly intended to achieve. & °me of the recommendations of the Board ot Irade are as follows are aware 'Chat there are many small coasters Which would not bet it a strict survey, ond wMchhnKi? °^ ned by com] paratively poor men, and being habitually navigated by the owners themselves or Kth e^ n ° f lo ‘ who are W *U “equated risks fhf vessel ?> w lth , tho voyage, and with the 2®, 8 f ®y run ~do, -.under such circumstances, conon an exceedingly useful httle °f’ a * ttn T rate - witVfar lea rim peisons who look only to the condition of stcVtrff !! led - t0 oppose. To put a eud P +i rade °| thlE * description would he to put an SSr.™ em Pj°y m «b t earnings of an indnsmmivn?' ÜBeful clas *> ■ Of men, to discourage the of ?h« « s ® ame ?' au d to deprive the carryinl trade : this °lu vtdna Wv 1 f ° rm of competition. If womd «rt ki the r esult .of-the recent Act, it would probably «*us« mota btfne&t to

the class whom it was intended to protect, and it is scarcely necessary to say that the Board of Trade, in administering it, are anxious to avoid any such result. They are prepared to lay great stress on the point above referred to, and they propose, in all cases where circumstances are brought to their notice leading them to the belief that any coasting craft is not entirely seaworthy, to inquire in the first instance by whom she is owned and navigated. If it proves that she is employed on short voyages only, and that she is navigated by the owner or by men who, being competent and experienced seamen, knowing the craft well, and accustomed to sail in her, are willing to continue so to do, the Board of Trade will not, as a general rule, treat her under such circumstances os a vessel (seriously endangering human life, although she may not be capable of passing the strict survey which is applicable to other cases.

Very plausible, indeed, are the reasons set forth, but will one of them bear examination. Of comae they arc dictated by benevolence and—heaven save the mark I—love for the poor. But is it wise to encourage “ comparatively poor men ” to invest in an acknowledged risky employment of thfeir cvpital for the purpose of competing with and dragging down the profits of men of wealth, who are prepared to do the work on fair and equitable terms? And if “comparatively” or intrinsically poor men can do this, why not the rich ? Ihe implication is that goods sea-borne in unseaworthy ships will be cartied at a less rate of freight than in sound, well-found vessels; and thus the “poor man” will secure freights. Setting aside this, questionable inference, it seems to us that if shippers of goods are led to suppose they incur no extra risk by forwarding them in such a questionable craft, there is a cleacase of swindle on the part of the shipowner. In order to render the bargain between himself and the consignees, or consignors, a fair one, the true condition of the Vessel ought to be made known to them; and if then, for the sake of a possible saving, the goods are forwarded, they must be clearly entitled to pay extra insurance, or the goods be at the risk of the party authorising their shipment. But to allow such a vessel to bear the character of being seaworthy, through winking at her defects, is to aid and abet in a swindle upon the public, Nexb-comes the nonsense about “ putting an end to the employment and earnings of an industrious and useful class of men.” Can the Board of Trade seriously imagine that the earnings would be less because the security of sound, seaworthy vessels is greater ? It may be perfectly true that the money might not find its way directly into their pockets—it ought not on such conditions—but the carrying trade would not ceaso. Goods are nob shipped for the benefit of one class of men or another, but because it is found advantageous to transport them from place to greater the security with which this is done, the greater the gain to the industrial world. Merchandise conveyed by really well-found and seaworthy vesse’s is wu'fc unduly taxed to cover the extra risks of that borne by rotten, ill-equipped ships; and every loss occurring through the employment of such craft is so much capital wasted. To speak of discouraging “the supply of seamen” through rendering a seafaring life safe by insisting upon seaworthiness in ships of ail classes, is an insult to common sense! We can understand that such a course would in all probability prevent many “small capitalists ” with elastic consciences entering upon risks involving the possible sacrifice of other people’s property, their own lives, and those of their crews; and we can also understand that large capitalists taking advantage regulations could double or treble their fleet of floating coffins ; for the Board of Trade does not exclude them from participation in the game of chance ; but that there should be a seaman fewer because hta calling is shorn of half its perils, is on its face an absurdity that needs no refutation. We do not suppose that when lads choose “ the sea ” as a calling, they know much about the Jduties or perih of sailors. Very probably did they know the hardships “-a man before the mast” has to endure, they would adapt themselves to any form of drudgery in preference. “ Better be a tailor than a sailor,” said a neophyte after his first voyage as apprentice; “ better prick your fiuger with a needle than break your teeth with a biscuit.” The true way to encourage the supply of seamen is to increase their comfort and their safety, both of which m ; Bt be compromised by throwing the carrying trade into the hands of needy shipowners sailing unseaworthy ships, whether foreign traders or coasters. There need be little hesitation in pronouncing this mock benevolence of the Board of Trade a mere ruse designed to serve the ends of interested capitalists.