Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
OCR
THE. FATHERLAND
stibinariiies. This was amply confirmed by a cable report from Lon-
ll(Jl'l. dated July 8th. and published in the New York Tina‘: under the
heading “Defense Guns Carried by Some British Ships," as follows:
“Merchant vessels of a belligerent power are entitled by es-
tablished and uninterrupted usage of the sea to carry and use
armament in self-defense," said Lord Robert Cecil, Parliamen-
tary Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in reply to a question
but by Commander Carlyon W. Bellairs in the House of Com-
mons.
“Several neutral governments," Lord Robert said. “were coin-
municated with in this matter at the outbreak of the war, and
several more have been approached since, as circumstances sug-
gested. . .
“The principle of merchant ships carr ’l11g arms for se1f-de-
tense has been generally recognized. and ritish ships, so armed,
have been trading regularly with the various countries since an
early stage of the war." ,
We maintain that it is unhuman and unneutral to supply the Brit-
6?’
ish Allies with arms and ammunition in the present war. Whatever
may have been done in the past, whatever precedents set by other
nations-including Germany and Austria-Hungary-may have estab-
lished the so-called legality of this hideous tratiic, we maintain that
it is in violation of principles greater than mere man-made laws
and that. in this the greatest of all the world's wars, with the battle-
fields of Europe reeking with carnage, it would be to the everlasting
fame of this great country to establish the new and noble precedent
of refusing to share in murder.
(In the following articles on the trade in tool: of death Illr.
Vierccle will tell of new war orders, of amazing import, placed re-
rclttly in this country. He will tell of the trctitettdoits trahic in
acrofrltimnr, automobiles and motors, the building of sttbntaritzcs, and
the export of ltorses slaughtered by the lmndreds of thousands on
the fields of battle. The important question to be brought to every
.-1 nmricou citizett is tliis-wlictlier thi'.r trahic shall not cease in order
that our pcacc may be ittsitred.)
EFFECT OF UNDERSEA WAR ON BRITISH TRADE
By F. Z. Nedden, M. E.
WITHIN the last few days a number of statements have been
published by the British authorities alleging the Pfacllcal
failureof the German submarine war. Besides the fact that they
are conflicting with each other they are in -themselves 0133“ l0
criticism.
According to a statement of the Admiralty, dated July 27th, 93
British and 95 neutral vessels were sunk since February’ 18”‘: While '
the total number of sailings from and arrivals at British 90715 “'35
Said to have been 31,385 within the same period, or an average of
about 1,350 per week. The percentage of loss to British ‘shipping
was calculated to be 98:3l.385=0.31%. . .
On Jul)’ 28th the Admiralty announced that the arrivals at British
ports during the last week numbered 2,738 and the sailings 1354-
"laklng 8 total of 4,092 as compared with an average total of 1,350
101’ each of the preceding 22 weeks. Al>D31'e"llYi 1" “def ‘0 “"58
‘he Egures, a new way of counting the dcP3l’l““5 ‘md animls has
"Ow been introduced, including, perhaps, even the movements of the
Smallest fishing smacks,
In contrast to the alleged “loss to British shipping" of 0-31%'
which was calculated on the base of the first batch of figures, the
latest statement by the Liverpool and London VVar Risks Associa-
tion (through which the British government is insuring ships) is
"ling to show that the actual losses “only” amounted to 1.18%
"W" February 28th up to date. To prove this actual '“””""“'
merit: by the company of $4,246,685 are compared with the value
of lhe total tonnage of $392,150,725. Of course, the actual reim-
bursements are not synonymous or contemporary to the actual losses.
merican exporters know how long 1'5 lakes in England to get the
"“’“9Y after sustaining the loss. The $4.246v685v lherefom only
“Present a small percentage of the actual losses. I g .
1“ Splte of the obvious contrast between the official hguref ll’ ‘5
possible to get near the truth when using them with due considera-
tion‘ R5Veftlng to the first Admiralty statement as being the most
Complete of the three, one finds that the figures of “'38” covers both
British and foreign sailings and arrivals at British P0”5- Tiler?’
fore, when dividing British losses only by this figure, the. result is
falsified, But this is only avcomparatively unimportant mistake.
AS the bulk of ships in British waters are on coastwise trade,
arriving at and sailing from a British P0“ eve” few days‘ and is
only 3 Wmparatively few steamers require more than one or tgvo
n.1“l1ths for a full voyage. the number of sailings and hriwals tli:
5”‘ months must be divided by at least 20 in order to arrive at
number of ships whose movements are responsible for that.gl'0;5
“g‘"e of 31.385 sailings and arrivals. With other words if. in It <2
aileragey each ship trading with Great Britain would, during thethacsn
“X months, have entered and left British 901'“ ‘my ten times’
’’‘t’ total average mtmber of shit’: 1"01"'"9 ‘within the danger 50"?
m””0f have been te than 1,570 .thl['-L . . -
of these, accordihgatd Mr. Hurd’s statement, 98 British aiidltg?
neutral: in all 193, or 12.3% were rmik by the Gerlihan A]d'm”alo:t
ccc"'dl"'s’ to recent statements the total of British stlpsntage
womd be much greater than 98, and, consequently. tllc 9"“
would be greater than 12.370.
That the percentage is as high as this is borne out by the follow-
ing ligures. According to the British Admiralty’s announcements
the total weekly sailings and arrivals at British ports were:
Week ending March 28th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1,450
Week ending June 2nd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,382
Average 23 weeks since February 18th . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,360
The total has fallen continuously and should at present be about
1,270 (if 1,360 is to be the average between the maximum of 1,450
and the present figure). The total, therefore, has fallen 05," by
(1,450-1,270) :1,450=12.4%. ’
The submarine war, if maintained at the present rate of efliciency
only for one more year will, therefore, have robbed Great Britain
of more than one-third of the mercantile fleet at present serving its
needs.
As a matter of fact the insurance and freight rates and the sail-
ors’ wages and personal insurances have been skyrocketing all the
time since that momentous date of February 4th. One effect of this
is to be' seen in the following table, taken from the London Econ-
omi'.rt of May 15,1915: Maysglsy same week
1914 1915
Average price of wheat in England . . . . . . . 32 sh. 2d. - 60511. 5d.
Average price of wheat in Chicago . . . . . . . 28 sh. 2% d. 41 sh. 11 d.
Difference, equivalent to freight insurance, V '
etc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 sh. 11%-, d. 18 sh. 6 d.
It [0513 to-day .ri.r ti'mc.r as much to transport wheat from this
country to London than (1 year ago.
This combines with the comparative scarcity of wheat as the
amounts exported by Russia and the Dual Monarchy in 1913-1914
represented about one-third of the world’s total wheat exports, but
have fallen to practically nothing in 1915. '
Another effect of the maritime situation is to be seen in the rise
in the price of meat. According to the London Times of May 21,
1915, the import of beef fell off in 1915, as compared with the same
period in 1914, by 28.75%, that of mutton by 19%, and that of pork ‘
by 57.5%. In addition the importation of fodder has decreased.
Many domestic animals had to be killed for want of fodder. Re-
sult: a superabundance of meat in the earlier months and what
amounts to almost a meat famine now. The London Economic’! of
May 15th states that 8 lbs. of beef cost 3 sh. 4d. in August, 1915,
and 4511. 8d. in May, 1915, since when prices have sharply risen.
Butchers in Manchester, Salford, Peiidleton, Glasgow and Edin-
burgh in May decided to keep their shops open for only three days
of the week, and a warning was issued to the population to consume
less meat in the interest of maintenance of supply.
Though, therefore, England is not exactly starving, yet the cost
of living has gone up, as a consequence of the submarine campaign,
to such a degree that strikes are continuously breaking out in order
to secure “an increase of wages in proportionto the increased cost
of living." Though not starvation, this undoubtedly is a symptom
of hunger. England and the world at large have no reason to
view the submarine war with equanimity.
