Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1871-08-30
VINO OPPOSED RELIEF. TO MAINE
SUIPBUILDERS?


At the second session of the Fortieth
Congress, bill was introduced by Mr..
Pike of Maine, to promote American Com
merce. 1t was bill designed to relieve
the shipbuilders of Maine. asking, among
other things, drawbacks upon certain ar
ticles entering into the construction of
ships. 1t was earnestly supported by the
Maine delegation in Congress, and its
prospect for passage was fair, but in the
closing debate, when the republican men,
bers of Maine and other New England
States were sustaining it vigorously and
hopefully, it received its death blow from
the hands of Maine democrats and ship
owners.
During the debate to which we have re-
ferred, Mr.. briggs of Michigan, intro
duced the following letter from Bath,
Mime, written by well known democrats
and shipbuilders of that place. Mr. briggs
said
hold in my hand, and will send to the
Clerks desk to be read, letter from prom
inent ship builder in Maine. This letter,
think, sir, will convince the gentleman, the
House, and the country, that he does not rep
resent the entire wishes of the ship-builders
of the country in urging this drawback of the
duty paid on foreign copper. As the letter
will show for itself what this intelligent ship
builder thinks of the proposition, l will sus-
pend any further remarks until it is read
The Clerk read as follows:
BATH, MAINE, March 81, 1868.
SIR take the liberty to write you on al
lowing drawback on foreign materials used
in the construction of vessels, as ! am one OF
those who are opposed to the withdrawal OF
duties.
have not written our Maine Senators, al
they are committed to the friends of thai
measure. l viii briefly state my reasons
In the first place, it would be unjust to those
who have invested their money in ships, ant
the reduction of duties entirely would lesser
the value of their property just so much al
the drawback would amount to. We have
built in the last four years four ships. Tn,
duties on the foreign articles in them woul,
be about forty thousand dollars, and we shoul'
lose that amount, because the vessels woul
not sell for so much.
Another reason why there should be no en-
enlargement of that kind is that there ar
more vessels now built, than are wanted.
The cotton crop is not half what it was be
fore the war, when we had four million fiv'
hundred thousand bales. Ships will do wei
enough, and can afford to pay duties.
1t seems to me nothing can be more suicd
al than the course of the friends of this draw
back.
1t would be as though wooden manufactur.
ers, whose interest Is depressed, should ash
Congress to take the duties from machinery
or materials made abroad as a remedy for mill
now idle, causing new mills to be built, be
cause cheaper than the old ones. What ship
owners now want is profitable business for thu
vessels they now have, and then we shall have
healthy, not a dollhouse, growth of ship
building. Much complaint has been made O
the decrease Of American commerce withou
cause.
A large number of vessels were sold durins
the war, and we got our money for them, ant
these vessels are now employed mostly in tn
same business that they would have been EN-
ployed in under the American flag; and tn
cry that our commerce is dying out think
only raised because many OF those who hay
sold and now have their money in bonds wis
to have the privilege of building ships cheap
err than their neighbors, and when they can d
il they will sell and go TO building again. To
day American irsn and chains are being use
because they can be bought cheaper than tn
foreign article. Give a drawback. and ever,
article that can be imported will be, and tn
home manufactures that depend on ships TO
their sale must stop. To show that ship
building is not quite dead there are now prep
arations being made TO build on our river
the Kennebec, about fifteen ships and barks