Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1871-11-23
From the New York Tribune.
no " MEXICAN SHIPBUILDING MA Y
BE RE-INVIGORATED.
TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

..Now, all the ;,.,mense stores, at least, and
MANY other structures. use, as a chief material,
iron instead of wood Why, then, can we
not build vessels of the same MATERIAL
The answer, it seems to me, is patent to the
operation of the most ordinary mind. The
building of iron houses, like the building OF
railroads, bridges, and other structures, Is
absolutely protected from all foreign competl'
ton. either by the impossbility or impracti-
cabiity of importing the foreign article of like
kind; in other words, the cost of transporta-
ton is a perfect protection of nineteen
twenteths of the industries Of the country.
In the building of ships, on the other hand,
the cost of transportation, as an element of
protection, is entirely eliminated. When a
ship slides into the water at New York she is
as much in the arena of British competition
as if she were placed at that moment beside
her rival on the Clyde. Hence the question
arises, Shall we give to the American build
er, by law, some measure of that protection
which the builder of houses and bridges en-
Joy without any legislation whatever? If the
latter, in common with the workers in the va
rious industries of the country who are not
exposed to foreign competition, are to enjoy
the rates of wages which are the results of
our social, political and natural advantages,
why shall we not secure to the American
fulpUulluST tHS sdue IdtcS VI wages, elHCC lie
is equally entitled, by virtue of his American
citizenship, to the same advantages that are
enjoyed by all his co-laborers in the other
branches of American industry? 1t is not
The tariff, but the wages of labor, which make
vessels cost more in this country than in
Scotland.
And yet how does the case stand? Why by,
virtue of our relations of maritime reciproci-
ty, we admit British ships to our ports from
every part of the globe, upon precisely the
same terms as American vessels. In other
words, our ships engaged in foreign trade
have no protection whatever; and it is evil
dent that in such contest the nation which
can build and sell ships cheapest must, by yir-
tue of a self-evdent law of traffic, sooner or
later command the entire international COM
merce of the globe This is just as certain
as that in an open market the merchant who
undersells all his competitors will soon have
the market entirely to himself.
The practical effects of protection, how
ever, are before us. Our coastwise trade is
absolutely protected from all foreign compe-
tition, and it is now enjoying fair degree of
prosperity. In it we have the largest steam
marine OF any nation on the globe Cl,0S7, 600
tuns), and it is increasing at a gratifying rate.
But Just look at our steam marine in the for
eign trade One hundred and thirty-three
steamers plying between the United States
and Europe, and every one of them under
foreign flag. Our South American and Pacific
steam lines are in danger, and may at any
time be driven from the sea by rival British
lines. There is nothing to prevent such a
misfortune and what is the cause of this?
Cannot the men who built those magnificent
palaces, the Bristol and the Providence,
build ocean steamers? Is the mechanical
skill of those men confined to the beautiful
works of naval architecture which ply on the
Long Island Sound and the Hudson River,
with their splendid beam engines-whch in
themselves are proud triumphs of American
genius and skill !? BY no means. The reason
is simply this; The building of those vessels
is absolutely protected from all foreign COM
petition by the law of March /, 1917, which
says that no foreign vessel shall engage in
American home trade. Ask those men who
try in vain to make bugbear of the word
protection" if they will be consistent with
their professions Of free trade by advocating
IN New York City the repeal of that act of
March l., 1917, and throw our coastwise trade
open to foreign competition. What will the
men of New York say when they see British
steamers driving every American steamer
from the trade between New York and our
Eastern and Southern ports? But what il to
prevent that result when before their very
eyes they see that in the free competition of
foreign commerce the flag of their country is
not to be found at the masthead of single
steamship'in transatlantic trade?
And yet this is just what Is meant by abol-
ishing the principle of protection from our
American merchant marine. The sensible
people of this country are, l believe, unit
in favor of retaining that absolute protection
from all foreign competition which is now en-
joyed by our vessels in the home trade; and
| believe that they are also in favor Of extend
ing some sort of protection to our shipping
which is engaged in foreign trade.
What, says the affrighted free trader, will
you break in upon those relations of maritime
reciprocity, or free competition upon the
ocean, which we have been trying to establish
during the last fifty years2 Will you go back
to the obsolete policy of Oliver Cromwell :?
Well, that question of ''going back" is not
so very alarming, after all. Old ideas make
great many new sermons and great many
new speeches. The fashions are said to come
around once in twenty years the bride of to-
day may be arrayed in dress modelled after
the pattern of garment in which her great
grandmother stood before the altar. 1t strikes
me that one plain, comm0n-sense question
will dispel all this supers,itous dread about
"goiDg back.
Why was the act of May "a, 1928, passed
the act by which we invited the whole
world to maritime reciprocity? Why, simply
because it was at that time to our interest to
establish just such a policy. Wooden sail
ing vessels were then the only vehicles of
commerce upon the ocean, and in building
them we surpassed every other nation in
cost, speed and seaworthiness. Our forests
abounded in the finest ship-timber on the
globe, and American ship builders, unfettered
by any etfete rules of British Lloyds, gave
tree scope to their genius and enterprise.
We wanted free competition Just because we
knew that with free competition wo could at
tain to the foremost rank in the commerce of
the seas. And we did gain that prize. For
the same reason England was, until 1919, the
most persistent enemy of maritime reel
procity, for she saw in it the triumph of
American shipping. Even at this day our
sailing vessels can compete with British sail
ing vessels at least they require but little of
the otpTtinn Ipb inb RI no