The daily gazette., 1879-05-16
From the New York Herald.
senator Blaine's Opposition TO Free
NhiDs,

S"Isss
The distinguished Senator from Maine |
is a brilliant after dinner orator, and he |
almost outdid himself in this line in his |
speech at the Chamber of Commerce
banquet. But such illusions do not al
ways stand the ordeal of cold logic when
the occasion is over. With great part
of what Mr.. Blaine said on the deplorable
prostration OF our shipping interest we
fully agree. The statistics he presented
on this subject were striking and almost
startling, and they could not have been
more fifty addressed than to the assem-
bled merchants of New York. lie told
his audience that forign shipowners are
making zone hundred and ten million
dollars per annumca sum far larger than
the interest on our public debt'-by
! transporting the commodities in which
our merchants deal. And he went on to
ask and to answer:-'Whoh has made this
| money? France, England, Germany
everybody excepting the United States
| Think of it! One hundred and ten mil
lion dollars in gold coin has gone out of
the commerce Of this country into the
commerce of other countries. Can New
York stand this?" Assuredly, Mr.. Blaine,
we ought not to stand it, and you have
rendered a valuable service in bringing
this subject SO forcibly to the attention
of our merchants. But the brilliant
Senator is as lame and impotent when
he comes to the question of remedies as
he is forcible and powerful in depicting
the extent and humiliation of the loss
Most illogically he objects to the free
, purchase of ships. Let us examine his
grounds. lie says that the materials used
In the construction of ship are but q
fraction of its cost, the main cost beina
r the labor employed in putting the ma
terials together. He declares himself op
posed to allowing foreigners to furnisl
this labol and receive lis wages. This il
glittering plausibility which will no
stand moments examination. An,
= person who will reflect must see that
ship bought by Americans is just as mucl
product of American labor as a shiy
II built by Americans. Would foreig
n, M builders give us their ships? No. Ho,
,e then, would the ships be paid for? VIII
: Of course, in the exported products c
=, IL American labor. What real difierenc
le does it make in the American labor mai
TO ket whether hundred men are employ,
y for six months in building a ship ,
70 whether hundred Americans are ell
= ployed for six months in growing the col
ton or grain which is exported Tor ship
. The ship is equally the product of Amel
lean labor in either case. 1t is surprisin
r that so able and astute man as Senate
J Blaine can be blind to SO plain fact.
is the interest of American labor to b
employed in the most productive chal
n nels. Ii eighty men are employed i
~ growing cotton can in six months produt
enough to pay for ship which 1t woul
require hundred men six months
iR build, it is evident that six m nths' labt
of tWeny American citizens would /
thrown away by Mr.. Blaine's policy
building the ship instead of buying it.
- less American labor sufiices for procuril
ship when the labor is exerted on
American cotton plantation or In graf
fields than when it is employed in 9
: American shipyard, why shonld The su
plus be wasted9 II eighty men can raj
79 cotton enough to buy ship in the san
period of time that it would take hur
dred men to build ship Of the same va
~ M ue, the building of the ship would be
' misdirected application of American i
ds, dustry, involving sheer waste of the Ii
gar Dor of the surplus twenty men which,
employed in agriculture, would pay for
large quantity OF other imported artcl
-. besides the imported ship. 1t is sinp
''' preposterous to pretend that ship recei
ed in exchange for exported Americ;
commodities is not fruit of Americ,
industry,