New York Times Current History: The European War, Vol 2, No. 1, April, 1915: April-September, 1915Various
History
New York Times Current History: The European War, Vol 2, No. 1, April, 1915: April-September, 1915
Various
World War, 1914-1918
Much has been said about British manufacture of dyestuffs, and much
nonsense has been written about the lack of young British chemists to
help in their manufacture. There is no lack of able inventive young
British chemists. Owing to the unfairness of German competition by
methods just exemplified, a manufacturer, as a rule, does not care to
risk capital in the payment of a number of chemists for making "fine
chemicals." He finds "heavy chemicals" simpler. I do not wonder at his
decision, though I lament it. There are also other reasons. The duty on
methyl alcohol (for which no rebate is given) makes it impossible to
introduce economically methyl groups into dyes; the restrictions
incident on the use of duty-free alcohol do not commend themselves to
manufacturers; these constitute other obstacles in the way of the
British color maker. Lastly, our patent regulations are even yet not
what they might be, although an attempt has recently been made to
improve them. The British manufacturer is thus trebly handicapped.
Besides, the English competitor is at a disadvantage owing to what may
be termed systematic and fraudulent attacks, for which no redress has
been obtainable. Thus the manufacturers of Sheffield still complain, I
suppose justly, that German articles for foreign consumption bear the
words "Sheffield steel" stamped upon them. I myself have been approached
by a German swindler with the proposition that I should assist his firm
in infringing patents; he was surprised and pained to learn that I did
not consider his proposal an honorable one.
Nor are methods like these confined to business or manufacture; they
have greatly affected British shipping. Our shipping companies, in good
faith, have associated themselves with others in "conferences,"
apparently for the mutual advantage of all, forgetting that behind the
German companies lay the powerful mass of the German State. Tramp
steamers, and with them cheap freights to the East, have been
eliminated. The Royal Commission on Shipping Rings, which met some years
ago, referring to the system obtaining in Germany, and fostered by the
German Government, on charging through rates on goods from towns in the
interior to the port of destination, observed in its report: "Such rates
constitute a direct subsidy to the export trade of German manufacturers,
and an indirect subsidy to those German lines by whom alone they are
available. And as they are only rendered possible by the action of the
German Government, it appears to us that the British lines can in no way
be held responsible for the preferences which these rates afford to
German goods." Now, our Government pays large mail subsidies to many of
our shipping companies. Could these not be so utilized that it would
become impossible for Germans to capture our trade by indirect state
bounties?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account