OCR Text |
Show NHINQTOii. War Profits Of Ship-Builders Is Capitalism At its Worse? Never before "have so few men made so much money with so little risk," declares Ralph Casey, attorney for the General Accounting Office, before the House committee investigating the construction of the nation's huge merchant marine during the war. This is a serious allegation which, if substantiated by the facts and figures, will cause concern con-cern to loyal service men and others interested in the welfare of the country. In support of his statement Mr. Casey asserted that 19 shipbuilding companies, now under investigation, made a profit estimated at $356,006,-612 $356,006,-612 on a capital investment of only $22,979,275. This is a sorry picture for private pri-vate capitalism to present to the people of the United States. With the nation engaged in a desperate desper-ate war of self-defense, with the existence of the capitalistic system sys-tem at stake, the best contribution contribu-tion that these representatives of individual initiative could make to the defense of their country was to mulct the government of enormous profits. The government of the United States, anxiously watching the loss of ships at sea and desperately desper-ately struggling to avert defeat at the hands of the U-boats, put up facilities that cost $424,250,-694 $424,250,-694 for the . use of these companies. com-panies. Certainly, it would appear ap-pear reasonable for the government, govern-ment, as a capital-providing partner, part-ner, to share in the profits in proportion to its contribution. After allowing generous compensation com-pensation to the individuals employed em-ployed in the gigantic ship-construction program there would have been ample profits for distribution. Here is a sample of the profits that companies are alleged to have received, in spite of the fact that the government put up most of the money necessary for the construction plants: The Kaiser group, including seven corporations, used facilities facili-ties that cost more than $200,-000,000, $200,-000,000, put up less than $3,000,-000 $3,000,-000 capital and took down fees and profits, according to the committee counsel, of more than $190,000,000. The Kaiser companies are not the only ones that seem to have made a fortune out of ship construction con-struction Among other firms mentioned by the committee are the St. Johns River Shipbuilding Shipbuild-ing Corp., Marineship, Todd-Houston Todd-Houston Shipbuilding Corp., and Delta Shipbuilding Company. The first company made $2,080,-000 $2,080,-000 on $600 invested capital; the second, $11,871,840 on $500,-000; $500,-000; the third, $13,678,303 on $689,200 and the fourth $12.-171,811 $12.-171,811 on $750,000. Here is what Mr, Casey says about the record submitted to the committee: The shipbuilders "were really only managers of government shipyards and enviable en-viable managers at that, inasmuch inas-much as no skill or ability was required to make money when you consider the extent to which the Maritime Commission went not only to insure them against loss but to guarantee them huge profits" Someone "should come forward with a satisfactory satisfac-tory explanation" adding that in many cases "it looks as though the only know-how covered by the fee was knowing how to secure se-cure a contract from the Maritime Mari-time Commission." Gen. Clark Cites Record Of Russians In Austria General Mark Clark, Ameri-can Ameri-can Commander in Austria, says that the United Stales must be prepared to render substantial economic assistance to Austria and calls attention to the failure of the Russians, who occupy the "bread basket" of Austria, to permit adequate supplies of food to go into the other zones of occupation. oc-cupation. The American commander also al-so explains a difference of opinion opin-ion on what should be considered consider-ed a "German asset" in Austria. The definition is important because be-cause the Russians acquired certain cer-tain rights over German assets in Austria and the Russians in seeking reparations. -are seizing property which, in the American definition, is not properly a "German asset." The Russian military commanders, com-manders, according to General Clark, have not hesitated to seize farms, factories and other real property, feeling that any property held in the name of Germany or her nationals represents repre-sents legitimate objects of seizure. seiz-ure. The United States, on the other hand, feels that the property pro-perty rightfully belongs to Aus-trians, Aus-trians, having been seized by Germany in the conquest of the Austrian state. It should be understood that the greater the amount of reparations repar-ations seized by the Russians, the greater will be the demand for some kind of help for the Austrians. While it is undoubtedly undoubted-ly correct for the Russians to take property, belonging to the I German state in Austria, every seizure of property, which, in fact, belongs to Austrian citizens tends to weaken the ecenomic condition of that country and increase in-crease its dependence upon outside out-side assistance. One statement in connection with Austria, made by General Clark, is somewhat says that under Austrian law work is compulsory and that he nas absorbed more than 200 000 displaced persons in his zone However, in ordering such work to be performed, he could not under direction from Washing ton, require Jews to do such labor. la-bor. Army Now Asks Congress For Six Months Universal Training The War Department announces announ-ces that it will ask Congress to provide for six months' universal univer-sal military training, with some mandatory additional training required. A'r- f The current world u S ought to convin e A?' that it, is vital to theSc the United States that Dffr ?y men be trained for Sodyounr fare. While no oneSS immediately and that thri?0 saar " alrcady l k The revised program il War Department KSsSt tt- reduction from the onJ ? , 3 training previously but clings to the soundness of the idea tfitT ? nation should prepare iSS, ? & war in times of peace. vice is somewhat ancient but r worth is emphasized by & nigh hopeless position of United States when World wi and World War II began It would be a mistake for X dividuals to conclude that i' U cause our young men receive ml itary training, thev will u L 1 militaristically-S vocates of an imperial policy expansion. The only log caffi: for this assertion, as we see is the assumption that our vmm I ss men are morons or that ihl " 2 presenting it as 'a serious S ment against military tafaffr ttVoeugfnlledt thinktheSfe Despite the differences tha' have arisen between the view ious allies of the recent war is entirely too rariv hat war is inevitable. NeveX less if the Western powers into a state of military imDoten . cy while Russia contiSSfc A stress the reorganization of th. Red Army and the Russian neo pie are told by officials that war is inevitable, the verJ weakness of the peace-lovine na tions will invite the use of forr against them. e We hope Congress will an. prove the amended program of the War Department but have not 1 tears to shed over the fact that U young men will be called to eive1 six months of their lives to military mili-tary training. While we are sin cere admirers of the youth of tne land, we are convinced that a period of training, which would include the physical imorove-ment imorove-ment of ,the trainees, will constitute con-stitute an asset to those who re- ceive it. J |