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

turn from those of destruction to those of construction. When that time comes we can hope for immedi- ate upturn in the affairs of the whole world as other nations are about ready to meet us half way.” HE next speaker N. O.. Pedrick, general manager, Mississippi Ship- ping Co. called attention specifically to the valuable aid rendered the steamship business by section 15 of the shipping act of 1916 on the regu- lation of water carriers. In concluding he said in part: “There is, I believe, a misconcep- tion on the part of some friends of our merchant marine as to the part American steamship owners should play in bringing about low ocean freight rates. If the idea, that we constantly are or should be trying to get the foreign lines in our confer- ences to agree to low rates, is ex- ploited too much it can do us harm. ... Rates should not be so low that the carrier cannot give good service, maintain his ships in good condition, and set up a reserve for replacement. “Of more value to American ship- pers than the measure of the rate is the assurance that they and Amer- ican shipowners have a common in- terest in developing foreign markets for American goods; that dependable service will continue when emer- gencies cause the withdrawal from the trade of foreign flag vessels; and that the prosperity of the American shipping industry means added prof- it to an almost limitless number of other American industries.’’ EGINNING the morning session Jan. 5, Commissioner S. S. Sand- berg, vice chairman of the United States shipping board, addressed the conference on the regulation of wa- ter carriers. He pointed out that as the board gradually retired from the operating field, the regulatory func- tions have been increasingly exer- cised; and that ports, shippers and shippers’ organizations are now util- izing the regulatory functions of the board to such an extent that as of the immediate future it may be said that the board is primarily engaged with regulation. At first, Commis- sioner Sandberg said, there was a tendency to dispute the jurisdiction of the board. This was particularly true in the case of carriers in for- eign commerce not under the Amer- ican flag. He cited an instance in the case of the French line in which the board’s action was supported in the federal district courts and finally in the Supreme Court of the United States. This decision made it clear that the board’s authority is just as applicable to foreign flag carriers engaged in commerce of the United States as it is to American flag car- riers and further, that it is imma- 14 terial in this respect whether the contracts of affreightment out of which the controversies arise are made in a foreign country or in the United States. The commissioner pointed out that the primacy of the board as a tri- bunal, for the determination of ques- tions of fact in reference to unjust discriminations and undue prejudice in connection with rates and prac- tices prohibited by the shipping act, is now firmly established. The most important regulatory functions of the board touching intimate inter- carrier relationships is that in con- nection with conference agreements specified by section 15 of the ship- ping act of 1916. By approval of the board in these instances the car- riers who are parties to the agree- ment are relieved from any possible attack for violation of the Sherman or other anti-trust laws. He con- cluded his remarks by referring to the value of this regulatory law in stabilizing rates and commercial con- ditions for the benefit both of ship- pers and carriers. HARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, sec- retary of the navy, spoke briefly to the conference as follows: “For a little brief period I can call you brothers, for the navy and the merchant marine are brothers, each dependent on the other. Weare here to do what we can to help you. We recognize that you are essential to us if our period of stress ever comes. We know you will help; we know that we can work together. We deepiy recognize our duty to you to help the merchant marine of this country in every way that God per- mits us and we are always here for that purpose.”’ HE next speaker on the program was Congressman Will R. Wood who spoke on government transport competition. He outlined how the transport service of the army came to be organized pointing out that the con- dition existing at that time no longer prevail and that there is no reason now why the government should con- tinue competing with private steam- ship companies in having its own transport service. The United States he said, is the only country in the world that has such a service. All the other maritime powers transport their armies and supplies in merchant vessels privately owned and we should go back to the same practice. He pointed out that there are now 15 vessels owned and operated by the government in the transport sery- ice. It is an expensive luxury and a source of unnecessary competition for our merchant marine to main- tain these special services contended Mr. Wood. The vessels in this category en- gaged in the Panama canal service . MARINE REVIEW—March, 1933 are, in the opinion of Mr. Wood, the greatest offenders. This line en- gaged in private business to a cer- tain extent with ships. operating through the Panama casal. Then be- gan an expansion of this business to take in not only Panama and through the canal but to ports of South Amer- ican countries. These activities were finally terminated by’ the secretary of war because of widespread protest. If the operation of these ships be considered on the same basis as pri- vate operation these government transport ships have lost $32,000,000 in the last 15 years. Mr. Wood said that it is up to those that are im- mediately interested in the mer- chant marine to see that these things are corrected. Letter from General Pershing AJOR D. D. EISENHOWER, U.S.A. read a statement ad- dresed to the conference by General John J. Pershing. The general’s statement in part follows: “The knowledge of the woeful lack of American shipping for the trans- portation of our armies abroad in 1917 and 1918 should make an in- dellible impression upon the mind of every American and drive him to the conclusion that we must provide an adequate merchant marine under our own flag. Our bitter experience dur- ing those crucial years of the nation’s history should never be forgotten, and I pray that the American people will never again permit themselves to be placed in such a position with its vast and extremely dangerous pos- sibilities. “Two lessons stand out clearly from that experience. The first is the wisdom of the historic national pol- icy of Great Britain in maintaining a strong merchant marine. But for her merchant marine and her ability to replace losses rapidly, the U-boat campaign might well have been suc- cessful. The other lesson is the un- wisdom of America and our risk of defeat because we had practically no ships on the high seas when we en- tered the war. “Fortunately, those two lessons have not been entirely overlooked by our people. Congress has definitely committed our government to the pol- icy of having an adequate merchant fleet under our own flag. ... Al- ready a beginning has been made. We have 600 ships of American reg- istry under private ownership touch- ing at all the important ports of the world. .. The advantage of carry- ing our own goods to foreign mar- kets in American bottoms can scarce- ly be over-estimated. It not only provides cheaper ocean rates but it helps to build up at the same time an important American industry. And this is not all. Every vessel floating the American flag is not only of pos- sible use as a military transport,