THE Wairarapa Age. MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1909. THE DECAY OF AMERICAN SHIPPING.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9614, 7 October 1909, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age. MORNING DAILY. THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1909. THE DECAY OF AMERICAN SHIPPING.

The statement that another attempt is to be made to induce Congress to pass the Shipping Subsidy Bill in view of the deplorable condition i of the American trans-Pacific trade is a significant reminder of the acute competition to which the Far West is being subjected by the Far East. When the last Shipping Subsidy Bill was rejected by Congress one of the consequences was the cessation of the American steamship service be- ' tween San Francisco and Sydney, and now it is stated that Oakland Harbour (San Francisco) is full of ships that may never put to sea again; that the steamers of one American company have been lying idle for two years because they cannot compete with the British and Japanese vessels in the trans-Pacific trade; and that only five American steamers are still running in th t trade. *n view of the fact that no country has enacted such drastic legislation framed to keep its ship ping for its own people as. the United States the plight of the America shipowners is truly remarkable. The American coastal trade is strictly preserved for American vessel?, but the American oversea trade when opposed to the fierce blast of Japanese competition has absolutely shrivelled up, and no wonder. Japan with its ample supply of cheap labour and its own raw material can build j ships far below the cost that has to be paid by the American shipowner who has high-priced labour and constant strikes to contend against. It is the Japanese and not the British competition that is the real cause of the slump in American shipping. ! Not only are the Japanese vessels more cheaply constructed but they are far more cheaply manned and their running expenses are far lower than those of the American or the British steamers. Also the Japanese lines are heavily subsidised by the Government of Tokio. It is no wonder that gradually and surely they are monopolising the carrying trade between the United States and the Far East, a trade that must grow enormously with the opening up of ! China. How to compete with Japan in shipping is a problem that ia not confined to the United States. The chairman of the P. and 0. Company had some remarks to make at the last annual meeting of the company as to the inroads which Japanese competition had made upon the trade don« b/ the P. and 0.,, j

and a survey of the situation seems ts indicate that Japanese competition in the trans-Oceanic carrying trade is oniy just beginning. The opening of the Panama Canal may yet give the Japanese shipowners direct access to the crowded markets of the old world. It is a remaikable fact that during tne year ended June 30th, 19G9, only two ocean going steamships were built in tha United States, and those were for the coast al trade. Not a single American steamship was built for the foreign trade. Then again, in addition to the handicap of the vastly cheaper cost of construction and co?t of running in the case of Japanese steamships, there i c < the important fact that Japan possesses an abuniance of excellen nteam-coal, while thera is a chronic dearth of coal in California, and San Francisco has to import much of its coal supply from Australia. How can the United States shipowners possibly compete with their Japanese rivals? The subsidy that would enable an American shipowner to compete with bis State-assisted rival in Japan, who enjoys cheap raw material, cheap labour, and cheap coal, might have to be so enormous that the value of the resultant trade might not compensate for the outlay. And on the other hand the Japanese liners cannot be barred out of American ports by prohibitive port dues unless similar treatment is meted out to the ships of every other nation—which is impossible. These considerations seein to indicate that all the attempts which have been made by Congress to stimulate the American shipbuilding and shipowning industries have failed to achieve their object. Of course it might.be rsaid that America being enormously more wealthy than Japan could afford to subsidise American ship .'ners so highly that they would be able to crush the Japanese competition. It has been pointed out in fiscal arguments that it is possible to breed I polar bears on tha Equatir if enough 1 money is spent on the business, and the same contention applies with regard to subsidising A nerican shipping against Japaneo-i competition. The question is whether it is worth while, and also whtt er all other sections of the Ameri :an population will consent to contribute t) the support of the shipbuilding and ship owning industries. There is a point at which the feasibility of repressing international competition by hostile legislation must break down. And it mav be noted, that the point appears to have been reached already in the drastic shipping legislation of the United States.