The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1868-06-20


The prospect of better times for Maine snip
builders and shipowners is almost hopeless,
and the sirpnlar circumstance in connection
with the matter is that one of their own num-
Der has been chiefly instrumental in deciding
the case against them. On Wednesday in the
House of Representatives Mr.. Eliot of Massa-
chusetts reported a bill from the Committee
on Commerce which if passed would have
placed Maine shipbuilders in a position to
compete with persons engaged in the same
business in other countries. IN the first place
the annual tax of 20 cents a ton imposed ON
American vessels is removed. Second, and
most important, a drawback IS allowed on all
material imported and used in the construc-
ton of vessels equal to the amount OF the i'm.
port duty. Third vessels under twenty tons
are relieved from the burden of paying the
expense of enrolment and registration, and
are required to take only license to entitle
them to all the privileges of American vessels.
After full discussion, in which Messrs.
Lynch, Blaine and Pike of this State took an
active part and urged the Importance of the
measure with great ability and zeal, the bill
was tabled by the decisive vote of 80 to 45.
The opposition came chiefly from Pennsyva-
mia and the West, and was not confined strict
ly to either political party. though the virulent
Wisconsin Copperhead Eldridge, threw into
his objections the heat and asperity which
characterize all his discussions of questions OF
public policy. 'H
Primarily the defeat of the bill was due to
the prejudices of the protectionists. Pennsyl-
vana iron, represented by Congressman from
that State N a oh
to its passage. They feared that if the duties
on imported material were practically abolish
ed, domestic productions would be ignored.
The free-Sraders of the West, chiefly from
Wisconsin and Michigan, came to the assist
Rnce of the Eastern men whose ideas are dia-
metrically opposed to their own. They insist
that if protection is injurious to the shipbuiId-
ing interest, it is wrong as matter Of general
policy, and that there should be sweeping re-
vision of the tariff instead of evadins its effects
in behalf of a particular branch of industry by
the clumsy expedient of allowing drawbacks.
This objection is specious, but its weight was
materially lessened by the arguments of Mr..
Lynch and his associates who clearly proved
that the shipbuilders are in peculiar situa-
ton which may justly be made the ground of a
discrimination in their favor. Their reason
ing may be succinctly stated thus: The OBJ
ject of protective tariff is to shield American
producers from the effects of competition with
foreign producers, who have the advantage of
the pauper labor of the Old World. Protec-
tion at least in the opinion of its advocates, eff
fects this purpose with respect to most
branches of industry and they are saved from
the evil which they fear. With shipbuilders,
the general provisions of a protective tariff OPP
crate in radically different way, for they are
by virtue of the very nature of their business
brought into CO mpetition with the shipping of
other countries, in spite of any legislation that
our own government can afft I'd, and the tariff
that helps other producers destroys the bust
ness of shipbuilding by compelling the indi-
viduals who engage in it to pay more for their
material than foreign builders.
1t is perfectly clear that the bill is just and
wise, whether the free-trade advocated by Mr..
Pike or the protection advocated by Mr..
Lynch is the correct general policy. II the
former is right, there is no reason why one
branch of industry which is depressed more
than any other, should not be relieved be-
cause all the rest cannot at this time, be treat
ed with equal liberality. IF the latter is right
shipbuilding, unlike other pursuits, is depress-
ed instead of stimulated by existing laws. 'A
These principles are so plain, and the decay
of American commerce has obviously been so
great within the last few years, that the argu-
ments of both protectionsts and free traders
from this State would in all probability have
convinced the House had it not been for the
introduction by Mr.. briggs of Michigan of a
letter from one of the Messrs. Houghton of
n>+h- - .hsr-sstota ada-ereea cse..s4 49,
Chandler. The writer took strong ground
against the bill, alleging that the amount of
tonnage already in existence with what
will be added the present year is amply sufi-
Gent to answer the present commercial wants
of the country. This letter completely neu-
tralized the efforts of our Representatives, the
majority of the members apparently overlook
ing the entirely satisfactory exposition afford
ed of the peculiar circumstances which had
tendency to warp the judgment of the writer
So the matter will rest till wiser and more pat
riotic counsels prevail