BANQUET. 253 
much of our export business is done on a F. O. B. basis, or, in the case of imports, on 
a C. I. F. basis, which means that the consignee or shipper in foreign lands has the placing 
of the insurance, and naturally he places it in a foreign company who has no particular 
interest in promoting the success of the American merchant marine, or, in fact, any flag 
other than his own. This is cold business. 
So much for what has been done by the Government. This, however, is not and should 
not be our goal, for governmental ownership and operation make for waste, destroy per- 
sonal ambition and incentive, and with the vast fortune of this country back of the same 
cast a shadow over all commercial enterprises wherever we come in competition. 
Let us now look at what has been done in the development of privately owned lines 
since 1917. On the west coast there are two passenger ships trading transpacific; two trad- 
ing to Australia; and perhaps a dozen cargo steamers to the Orient, Central America and 
South America. On the Atlantic we have two excellent services to German ports, and one 
of the largest manufacturing concerns has increased its fleet to well over forty bottoms that 
cover many important trade routes. The intercoastal trade, which is a restricted one, is 
absorbing today between 600,000 and 700,000 tons of the best American ocean-going cargo 
ships. Of course this tonnage would be available in time of war for any service it might be 
called upon to fulfil. 
This comparison, therefore, of our position in 1916 vs. 1922 is anything but a pleasant 
one, for it shows that, so far as privately owned shipping is concerned, we have made little 
or no progress in developing services to move our exports or imports in world-wide trad- 
ing. If it is the country’s wish that we have a merchant marine, then it can only be suc- 
cessful in private hands who will, by energy, ambition and resourcefulness, if proper laws 
are enacted, place it in a position to compete freely with the flags of other nations. While 
it is true that many maritime nations operate ships under restrictive laws, as a rule, owners 
are generally free to take advantage of every means at their disposal to reduce costs of 
operation to the lowest possible point, and this during periods of depression means simply 
“the survival of the fittest.” Are we headed that way, or are we headed the other way? 
Countries whose laws are too harsh reflect this lack of commercial freedom in the size of 
their commercial fleet. While most of the government fleet which is available for off-shore 
trading is good enough for pioneering work during the development period, the ships gen- 
erally are not good enough to give, when they eventually fall into private hands, real com- 
petition to those of other nations. Read the history of practically every old established ser- 
vice in the world. The ships they employ today, so far as their construction and type are 
concerned, are the result of years and years of experience; in other words, they were built to 
meet the special requirements of the trade in which they are engaged. Now, what are we 
doing along similar lines? As near as I can learn we are at a standstill. True, there is an 
order given every now and then for a West Indiaman, or an ore carrier, or a collier, or a 
special type of tanker, and while I am interested in this development it does not go far 
enough. It is only a fraction of what we should be doing. Our ships will be wearing out 
some day, and if we do not get ahead speedily along these lines we are going to find our 
shipyards with grass growing along the ways and rust forming in the machine shops. 
Don’t think I am painting an all-blue picture; I am just stating facts. 
We have reached a point where a decision must be made. The war has been over four 
years, and while world trading is, of course, in a most depressed condition, the wise and 
prudent man or country prepares in advance for peace or for war and does not wait until 
either is at his front door. 
