Could a new maritime bill really aid the mills of the Pacific Northwest?

THE JONES ACT, felt by some I to have a choke hold on the Northwest forest products business, is the latest transportation regulation to feel a pressure for change in the Congress.

Introduced for a second time by Rep. Paul McCloskey (R-Ca.), the bill would amend the 1920 Merchant Marine act which requires that all shipments between United States ports be made on vessels built in the United States, documented, owned and managed by U.S. citizens with American crews. Hearings are being held by the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries to which it was referred. Last year it never got out of this committee.

At the time the Jones Act was put into force, there were many intercoastal lumber ships flying the stars and stripes. The number totaled 65 as late as just after World War II. Now, according to Stanley Bishoprick, Dant & Russell, Portland, Or., there is not a single competitive American cargo vessel available in the intercoastal trade for lumber or any other cargo.

As a result of this lack of ships, a lot of West Coast lumber is staying on the West Coast because of the high cost of overland shipping. Canada, not bound by the Jones Act, can ship in foreign bottoms for much less. As a result, about 9990 of the western lumber arriving on the East Coast is from Canada.

If passed, bill H.R. 3577 would remove the restrictions for two years on lumber and other forest products shipped from the West Coast to Gulf and East Coast ports whenever the Secretary of Commerce is able to determine that there are no U.S. vessels available for such transportation. This action would allow West Coast lumber shippers to charter

Story at a Glance

Changes in shipping laws (Jones Act) introduced way seen to get forest products to East coast for less . .. opinion divided on desirability of opening intercoastal shipping to non-U.S. ships.

foreign flag vessels and compete with Canadian lumber shippers.

Opinion is divided regarding this amendment. The Portland, Or., Chamber of Commerce, Dant & Russell and Pope & Talbot are among firms that have come out in favor of it. Sen. Mark O. Hatfield of Oregon also favors it, not only as a prop for the sagging lumber industry in his state, but as a way to promote Oregon's maritime industry. He has expressed the hope that the Reagan administration will establish a new maritime policy to revitalize U.S. flag shipping which in turn would be a shot in the arm to two major Oregon industries.

Walt Howe, v.p.-government relations for Weyerhaeuser, Tacoma, Wa., reports that his company is, at present, neutral to this specific solution of the problem. While opposed to the Jones Act because they feel it is partly responsible for a loss of market for the Northwest forest products industry, Weyerhaueser is analyzing the political situation and the impact of the amendment to determine the type of change most desirable. Action will be taken when they have the complete picture, spokesmen say.

As might be expected, those opposed to the McCloskey amendment include shippers and the maritime industry. Both feel they will be the losers if it passes. On the last go around the maritime lobbies had great effect, but there are those who predict that their influence is on the wane.

Southern mills also stand to face increased competition if it becomes economically feasible to send more western lumber into the southern and eastern markets.

In the Northwest, it is felt that companies there with large southern operations may be uneasy about the proposed change, but that most of them tend to identify with the Northwest.