, 1881-10-29
American ShipRin2.

In relation to American shipping the
San Francisco Cal says TINT the business
of ship bHilding and b. ish.-carying haa,
10 large e1teat, pa.sed out Of Aneric.s
hands. Ii is found that under existing
laws and conditions the English can do
that kind of work more cheaply than We
can. There are several reasons Why the
English beat us in this business, bnt the
principal one is the relative cheapness OF
labor. Tie English have the raw mater
ial for the construction of iron vessels, AT
least equal skill with Americans in con
structing ships, and cheaper labor to do
the work with. Consequently she turns
ont cheaper ships When the vessel is
completed the same advantage of cheap
labor enables her to do the bulk of the
| carrying trade. The industry is one
in which they possess certain advantages,
and these they make the most of. We
| ruin English farmers with our cheap
grain and cheap beef, not because We are
better farmers than the English. but be-
cause we have cheaper land. The Eng
lish farmer pays about Sl5 an acre each
| wear for the use Of wheat land, while the
American farmer buys his land outright
for $50 an acre. The cheaper labor Of
the English farmer does not enable him
to overcome this difference in the cost Of
land, and consequently his business is
psssinp. to some extent, into American
hands. The business of ship-building
and freight-carrying is connected only III
slight way with commerce. The I'M
porter employs an American or foreisn
vessel to bring his goods to tins country,
as may seem to his advantage. In either
case he pays the current rates OF freight
The exporter does the same If New
York merchant can send profitable car
90 to a South American state, he does not
wait for an American vessel to offer to
| take it. The vessel that will do the
work cheapest and best, all things con-
sidered, is the one for him to employ.
Personally it makes no difference whether
| the vessel flies the American or foreign
FLAG. He can insure his cargo in either
ease and otherwise protect himself IRON
l., A.. al xTN..Ul
| of the case we find that England does our
carrying trade because she is in position
to do a certain amount Of this kind oi
work for less money than Americans de-
mand. Americans will do it for less than
they now ask when they can do II" bet
| ter So long as We can make more
money by raising wheat for the English
market than by carrying freight IN com
petition with English ship-owners, We
shall continue to do SO. There is no
reason why We should not There Is
nothing especially enr;ching in the car
rying trade Ii is to an extent monopol-
| lied by England now, because with her
| cheap labor she can do 1t iitile cheaper
than we. In other works, we have mere
| profitable industries and she has not.
When we have not, We VIII compete with
England for the carry ing trade. This
argument does not inply that We shonid
not put our steamship lines on snbstan-
TALLY the same footing As foreign lines
1t will be 90 ID policy, in the long run, to
encourage American lines by liberal pay
ments of carrying the nails and other
national service. Th,re are some points
also on which American laws are burden
some to the carrying trade. The rule "i
measurement, FIR instance, is sTch that
the port charges on au American rcsso!
are greater than on an English vessel Of
the same carrying capacity. All such
burdens shonld be removed. The bust
ness should be gwen fair chance IL Is
The opinion Of many men. i'll position To
form correct judgments "m that quesii ~,
that with 4 proper revision of American
laws the bus hess Of Sh'p!uildlug ani
freight carrying in which W. once took
first rank, can be revived.