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

Marine Review February 1932 « EDITORIAL » Ratify the Convention for Safety of Life at Sea HE international convention for the safety T: life at sea agreed upon in London, 1929, should be ratified by the United States. It is hopeless to expect each individual, whether he be a member of congress or a private citizen, to familiarize himself with all of the manifold technical factors incorporated in this conven- tion. He has neither the qualifications nor the time for doing so. We must trust the judg- ment, the good faith and the thoroughness of the able representatives of the United States who helped to formulate and agreed to the terms of the convention. No one can justly criticise either the ability or the integrity of these men. Let us ratify the convention for the safety of life at sea and thus bring its provisions into effect. Without such ratification this valuable work in the cause of safety is inoperative in in- ternational trade. It doesn’t seem reasonable that we should through inertia, lack of inter- est, or unfounded suspicion of its terms, fail to take the necessary action to put the stand- ards of the convention into effect in order to reduce the dangers to life and property afloat. Rear Admiral J. G. Tawresey, C.C. U.S.N. re- tired, one of the American delegates, recently prepared a careful analysis of the terms of the convention with reasons for its ratification by the United States and a reply to some of the criticisms. No fair-minded person can read the admiral’s able summary without feeling that our own interests are amply protected in every respect, that we owe it to ourselves and to our fellow human beings in the world to promptly agree to the convention and thus increase the safety of life at sea. Responsibility for Naval Contracts ROM one of the sections in the house of rep- f resentatives bill for naval construction intro- duced by Representative Carl Vinson of Georgia, chairman of the house naval affairs committee, it is clear that the secretary of the navy does not take kindly to the review of naval contracts by the comptroller general. Section 2 of that bill directs that whenever the secretary of the navy enters into a contract for the construction of any vessel or engine, such contracts shall be awarded on terms pre- scribed by him to the bidder that in his judg- ment can satisfactorily perform the work or the service required to the best advantage of the government, And here comes the nub of thé matter. “The award of such contract by the secretary of navy, the interpretation of the pro- visions of the contract and the application and administration of the contract shall not be re- viewable by any officer or tribunal of the United States except the President and the fed- eral courts.”’ This seems reasonable. It places the respon- sibility under the law directly where it belongs on the head of one of our long established de- partments of government. At the same time it fully protects anyone, who in his dealings with that department may feel that he has not received a square deal. He can appeal to the federal court in his district or to the President of the United States. Stevedoring Charges in Great Britain N THESE days more than ever it is necessary to examine carefully all expenses in connec- tion with shipping. The shipowner, in many instances has no control over outlays required. In Great Britain, where some things are better done than we manage here, this state of affairs is receiving the attention of the proper authori- ties as illustrated by the investigation of stey- edoring charges recently completed by a com- mittee of the council of the chamber of ship- ping of the United Kingdom. This committee was appointed in October, 1930, to investigate stevedoring charges throughout the country to ascertain whether there was generally speak- ing a disproportionate margin between the prices charged by the stevedore to the ship- owner and the cost of labor involved. At first the committee investigated the cost of discharging, cost of labor and local customs MARINE REviEw—February, 1932 13