The Press TUESDAY. MARCH 5, 1918. Shipping and the War.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16152, 5 March 1918, Page 6

The Press TUESDAY. MARCH 5, 1918. Shipping and the War.

.Whenever there is a discussion on the subject of war profits, it is usually assumed by those critics who do not trouble to verify their rants that shipping companies are making huge profits out of enhanced freights, and are, :n fact, among the most conscienceless of the "profiteers." Wo have taken the trouble td explain cn more than ono oc-jasion that althougfi the ownors of tramp steamers undijubtedly made huge pronts, especially in tho earlier stages if the war, the great liner companies who carry on the bulk of the British commerce with all parts of tho world, havo neither sought nor obtained undue advantage frofn tho war. Tho speech of Lord Inchclipe, chairman of tho P. and O. Company, deliverod at the annual meeting of shareholders, shows that not only had that company —now tho largest shipping company in tho world —behaved with exemplary patriotism, in common with other largo shipowners, but that they have been >,i some respects treated unfairly by tho British Government. Lord Inchcapo stated that when tho war broko out, tho Government .and the shipowners met together, and it was agreed that all ships required by tho State for naval end military purposes should be chartered to Government at practically pre-war rates, and wjiat is known as tho Blue Book was framed accordingly. Tho vessels not required for Government scrvice wero left free to prosecute their ordinary -work. This went on till tho beginning of 1917. Tonnage was diminished by War Offico and Admiralty requirements, and war losses, and freights rcso in consequence, not, as Lord Inchcape points out, by tho action of tho owners, but by .tho law of supply and <$2mnnd. ThenV the Government suggested that they should also charter ail

-the free steamers, and that the owners

| should -work these ships on Government ! account, taking only the Blue Book of hire, and. handing over their

surplus earnings to the Government, tho idea being that tonnage would in this way be saved through not being employed promiscuously The suggestion was adopted by the shipowners, and the arrangement h:;s gene on now for the past eight or ten months. Freights have been raised, but the shipowners get no benefit from tho increase—the extra profit, if there is any, goes to the Government.. Tt is needless to say that this arrangement could not have l>een carried out without the hearty cooperation of tho shipowners. The Govcrnmcr.t could have commandeered the ships, but they would not have been able to work them without, the skilled assistance of tiie shipowners and their staffs. Tho shipowners in not only forgoing practically any increase in charter latcs beyond pre-war figures, ami in continuing to givo their own services at pro-war nites of pay, certainly do uoi deserve to be stigmatised as "pro- " fiteers"' by the very large class who have made profits out of the war, 01 who hive received war bonus additions

to their salaries or wages

In order to carry out this arrangement for the benefit of the Lmpire, the shipowners have necessarily had to submit to the entire dislocation of their pre-war trade. All the lines aie being worked as one service, the companies loading each other's ships ill turn, giving each other the benefit of

their various organisations and agreeing that none of them shall attempt to encroach on cach other's preserves when the war is over by reason of in-

formation or connexion acquired in the meantime. That such an understanding can have been successfully arrived at and carried out says much not only for the patriotism of the shipowners, but .also for tho tact of tho Shipping Controller, Sir Joseph Maclay. Some of the methods adopted by the Government towards the shipowners seem to the ordinary observer decidedly high-handed. On October 22nd, 1910, so we learn from Lord Inchcape's statement, tho P. and 0. Company received intimation from the Admir.iity that two British India steamers, of 10,000 tons each, which had been contracted for at very moderate prices long before the outbreak of war and .vere nearing completion, had been appropriated by the Government, who had taken over the contracts with the builders and told tho company that the latter had no further interest in either the contracts or tho ships. The company contracted as soon as possible for two other identical vessels to replace thoso which had been appropriated, the contract price being double that of the original cost. Will it be believed that, although the company frequently applied to the Government for the difference in price between the new and the old contracts and for the loss they had sustained through being deprived of the services of the two ships, they had, up to the timo when Lord Inchcapo addressed the shareholders, failed to obtain any satisfaction? Lord Inchcape did not mince matters in referring to this affair: "I don't know what our Social- " istic friends would say," he observed, "if a Government official walk"ed into their houses or on to their " small holdings and cleared out their " belongings on the same conditions. " It is the sort of thing we might pos"sibly have to endure if the Germans "got over here, but scarcely what wc "would exrcct from a British Govern"ment." It is hardly credible that such injustice will be persisted in, or that if it were tho law courts could' not afford a remedy. Everyone agrees that the officers and men of the merchant navy have acted with superb courage and patriotism throughout this war, so that we owe them a debt j of gratitude hardly, if at all, inferior to that which we owe tho Britisn Navy. Perhaps after reading Lord Inchcape's statement tho more fairminded portion of the British public will agree that the great shipping companies of the Empire have by no means shown themselves destitute or patriotism, and certainly do not deserve the hard things which havo been, said of them.