THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT AS A SHIPOWNER.
[To rue Eevroa or Tan " arm...ton:1 Slie,—Collectivism unmitigated, naked, and unabashed! State ownership of the " means of distribution "! And of " distri- bution " to foreign countries! This is the peril with which the people of the United States are menaced by a President who owes his election to the party of individualism, the party which has given to the country nearly half of the incumbents of that high office during the past hundred and fourteen years, the party of which President Jefferson (1800 to 1808) was the first leader, and of which President Cleveland (1884-1896) was its last until President Wilson took office in 1913.
Am I in error in my belief that there is no precedent in modern times for State ownership of a merchant marine for foreign trade ? Has such ownership even for coastwise, river, or lake traffic existed, except possibly for such subsidiary purposes as ferriage across seaters like the Straits of Messina or Lake Baikal in connexion with State railways, in which whole trains are sometimes so carried ? Has any advocate of the ownership by the State of "the means of distribution" included in his programme fleets for the carriage of the products of its citizens to foreign parts ?
And what is the excuse for this hlow at the fundamental principle of the Democratic Party (now in control of the Executive and of both Houses of Congress), a principle which is the raison d'être of the party ? This is the excuse "It is of equal consequence that the nations whom Europe has usually supplied with innumerable articles of manufacture and commerce of which they are in constant need, and without which their economic development halts and stands still, can now get only a small part of what they formerly imported, and eagerly look to us to supply their all but empty markets. This is particularly true of our own neighbours, the States, great sad small, of Central and South America. Their lines of trade have hitherto run chiefly athwart the seas, not to our ports' but to the ports of Great Britain and of the Continent of Europe."— (President Wilson in his address to Congress, December, 1914. recommending the passage of an act authorizing him to expend .£6,000,000 in the acquisition of ships for the carriage of passengers and cargoes to foreign ports.) The United States, then, is to become a shipowner primarily in order that the "economic development" of foreign States, especially those of Central and South America, may proceed in its normal course, which has been interrupted by the war. But this is not the only object of the proposed legislation :— " The United States . . . should be ready, as never before, to serve itself and to serve mankind, ready with its resources, its energies, its forces of production and its means of distribution.... We have the wish to serve and to serve greatly, generously ; but we are not prepared as we should be. . . . Hence the proposed Shipping Bill."
The service to foreign "nations" and to "mankind" is the main object, bat service to " itself" is not to be wholly over- looked by the United States in this abandonment of the doctrine of laisser faire which for more than a century has dominated Democratic practice, and more or less the policy of its opponents in the ranks of the Republican Party.
It seems to be understood that if the pending Bill should pass into law, it is the President's intention to acquire by purchase ships belonging to two German companies, of which there are forty-two laid up in American ports, fearing capture if they should venture outside. These forty-two ships have a total tonnage of about 464,000, and include the Vaterland' of 54,282 tons (the largest ship afloat), five others of over 18,000 tons each, and eight others of over 10,000 tons each twenty-seven of these ships are in New York Harbour, and the others are in the harbours of Boston, Philadelphia, Balti- more, New Orleans, Newport News, and Bar Harbour.
I am informed by authority which I believe to be reliable that the Germans who own these ships are liable for very heavy payments in respect of them, including the feeding and wages of their crews, port charges, management, depreciation,
exceeding in all more than one million pounda aterling per annum. So that, assuming that the United States Government takes over these ships for the sum of money which is mentioned in the Bill, the first effects of the transaction would be (1) to place that sum at the disposal of the present German owners of the ships, (2) to relieve them from the serious charges to which they are subject, and (3) to eliminate the possibility that sooner or later the ships may become the law- ful prizes of the British Fleet. (Whether or not the sale would be a violation of international law I must leave to the experts.) Thus the United States, instead of maintaining neutrality, would become a benefactor of one of the belli- gerents, and would in part deprive the other (Great Britain) of that superiority at sea, and its consequent ability to exert financial superiority in finance, which it at present possesses as an offset to the great superiority of its adversary on land. What next P These ships will have been bought for the purpose of carrying cargoes. Cargoes of what, and for whom? A good deal is said about the countries of Central and South America. Will there be no other countries to which cargoes will be carried P It is lawful for a citizen of a neutral Power to sell munitions of war to a belligerent, subject to the right of search in transit by sea and the right of seizure for proper cause. Will the Government carry such contraband ? Will it permit its ships to be searched by the other belligerent ? To what jurisdiction will it submit questions of condemnation? What about conditional contraband, and the inevitable diffi- culties which arise from its carriage in neutral bottoms ? Will the United States make itself responsible for its ultimate destination, assuming that that destination turns out to be one of the belligerents P If a belligerent should declare and establish a blockade of an enemy port, will these "neutral" ships endeavour to break through that blockade ? Such questions could be multiplied indefinitely.
They can be avoided by only one method. Neutrality can only be preserved by being neutral. For a real neutral (intending to be neutral) there is no path of safety but that of refraining from touching, even remotely, any matter or thing which may cause a diplomatic or other conflict with one of the belligerents. Of course the people of the United States are indirectly suffering from the effects of the war upon its commerce and industry. Who is not suffering from its effects ? Fortunate indeed are the people whose sufferings are only financial. Half the population of the globe is also suffering from wounds or sickness, or loss of relatives, or the horrors of massacre of women and children, or the destruction of their civilization, or facing death itself. The United States has it in its power to bring all this to a speedy ter- mination, without abandoning its neutrality, by giving the Allies not only the sympathy which it has bestowed, and is bestowing, in so large a measure, but by exerting that economic pressure upon their enemy of which it is capable, and which will some day (but perhaps after a much longer period of time) be made effective by the Allies without such assistance.
In the consideration of all the questions which are raised in this letter, it is hoped that the President will not ignore the ethical aspects of this great war which have been so fully described by such distinguished Americans as Professor G. B. Adams of Yale University, Mr. Charles Francis Adams, ex-Ambassador Robert Bacon, Mr. James M. Beck, Mr. Joseph H. Choate, President Samuel Harden Church (Carnegie Institute), Dr. Charles W. Eliot, Judge John Clinton Gray. Professor William Gardner Hale, Professor Henry M. Howe of Columbia University, ex-President Roosevelt, Dr. J. William White, and many others, and practically by the entire Press of America which is not controlled by Germans or German- Americans—ethical aspects which must of necessity appeal to him (if be will examine them) as a master in the domain of morals—I am, Sir, &C., A JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRAT.
Previous page
