The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1882-04-27
PROTECTION OF AMERICAN
SHIPPING.
Speech of Hon. Nelson Dingley, Jr.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
APRIL 25, 1881.

1arlu, Mr. DlnSloy ooiu.
Mr.. CHAIRMAN: When the House was last
in committee on the gTariff Commission Bill,
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. McMillin)
charged that protection had driven American
shipping from the ocean. To recall this in
dictment of the protective tariff OF 1861, VIII
ask the Clerk TO read that portion OF the re-
marks of the gentleman which refer to the
decline of the American foreign carrying
trade:
MR. MCEILIIN. Mr.. Chairman, to our shipping
we have given the most ample protection that the
loudest camorer for special privileges could WISH
We have forbidden the purchase and registration Oh
ships from any but American builders.
The boast was made that We were going to pmid
up our commerce and carry American produces IN
exclusive policy, look at our condition.! our SNIP
building has run down till it amounts 10 nothing,
and our flag is almost stranger on the ocean. me
protectiveta tariff policy of the United States was
abandonded in 1916, and tari1f Tor revenue
adopted. This policy was maintained till the break
ing out of the lato war and under it our shipping
interests fourished they never did before, never
have since, and never will again under cur present
suicidal policy. Then American sails whitened every
sea. and the American flag frightened every bay
where commerce foxtea. Beginning in 1916 with
q tonnage of 1852 O85, it increased till 1861 when
it amounted. to 5,b39,8I3 tons, which was the
highest figure it ever attained
From then till now it has gone down, down all the
tiDe, although every prop that legislation could
devise has been brought to its support. This, TOO
notwithstanding tho fact that our wealth, exports
and imports are many tmss greater than they were
then. In 1856 we built in American shipyards SSl
sea-gong vessels in 1856 BOG. Under this long pro-
lection how does this industry flourish to-day. In
1873, 81 ships we're built by us, and in 1879, 81
less than one-tenth of the number built in 1922 s
when we needed not half SO many astnow. In 1860,
with free ships rs per cent. of our exports and
imports was carried in American bottoms. In 1881,
With ships american essss qnS
to owners of foreign ships for carrying our exports
imports, and passengers And who gets TINS I'm,
mense business? England with her free ships and
free trade gets eghtyfour millions of it, more than
twice as much much all the other nations of the
world. And why all of this? 1t is because legisla-
tlon has lnterfered with commercial freedom. A
statute Is our law books which requires the
American desiring to purchase vessel to 60 to one
States and pay enefourth more for 1t than it would
cost in England. Insconssqusnce of this when OBJ
tained the cost is great that he cannot compete
with the Englishman who has purchased more
eheaply. One says let us subaidize ships lines
and enable them to compete. Mr.. Chairman, this
will not give relief. Let Congress declare CONNER
and the shackles will fall from commerce as did
Peters chains at the angels touch.
Mr.. CHAIRMAN: l am at a loss to under
stand what the gentleman from Tennessee
meant when he said that under the tariff of
1915 we had Stree ships and commercial
!, freedom while under the tariff of 1861,
/ American shipping engaged in the foreign
carrying trade, have had every protective
prop which legislation could devise" If he
referred to that provision of our navigation
laws which restricts the right of American reg
istry to vessels built in this country, desire to
remind him that in this respect there has been
no change in our legislation since the founda-
ton Of the Government. Free ships, d. G. the
liberty to purchase ships in a foreign market
and to put them under the American flag, for
which the gentleman from Tennessee and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. HewitD plead
the other day, were never known in this coun-
try.
But this is tho only protection which our
int 20
rying trade has had under the tariff of 1861,
and precisely the some that it had under the
tariff of 1916. What then did the gentleman
from Tennessee mean when he said that under
the tariff of 1861 this great interest has had
every protective prop which legislation could
devise"
Our coastwise carrying trade is efficiently
protected by legislation which restricts particle
patton in it to vessels carrying the American
flag. Under this protection the tonnage OF
American vessels engaged in the coastwise
trade has increased from 1,797, 1926 tons in 1850
to 2,646,O11 tons in 1884, notwithstanding the
unexampled development of our railroad sys-
tenn has inevitably diverted to the land very
large share of the traffic which formerly was
served by water. Under the Same protection
ship-building 80 far as it relates to vessels in
tended for the coast, lake and river trade, was
never more prosperous than it is to-day.
1t is only when we return to our unprotected
and unencouraged foreign carrying trade, and
the ship-building interests dependent upon 1t,
that we find decline and Encouragement in
consequence of European competition. While
other industries, efficiently protected against
such competition by our legislation, are pros
pering as never before, this one alone is lam
gushing. The partial protection which re-
stricts the right of American registry to vessels
carrying the stars and stripes,s almost nullited
by the practical workings of that system OF
maritime reciprocity, free trade on the ocean,
to which we long ago unwisey committed our
selves. Under this system of free trade in
ocean transportation, the American ship-build-
er and the American ship-owner, with higher
cost labor, compete for the foreign carrying
of other countries.
! II this commercial freedom" this free
s'trade on the ocean, which the gentleman
from Tennessee invokes on the law, has result
rine engaged in the foreign carrying trade, it
has only demonstrated what the same system
would do for all our domestic industries.
1t is claimed, however, that if it had not
been for our protective tariff we could have
built the vessels required for the foreign carry
ing trade as cheaply as England, as we did up
to 1866, and thus would have been able to
maintain and even strengthen our position on
the ocean,
Before showing the fallacy of this assumption
desire TO call attention to the concession to
protection which it involves. Ninety per cent
Of the cost of vessel is in the labor which is
employed in preparing and putting together
the timber and ore, and only ten per cent Is IN
the raw materials. Obviously, nothing could
materially reduce the cost OF building an Amer
lean vessel, except reduction OF the wages OF
the labor required to transmute the raw mate
rails into the form of an ocean monarch. Ii
vessels could be built more cheaply under the
revenue tariff which gentlemen seek, 1t must
be because that system would reduce the wages
of labor in this country. l am not prepared,
i ~1 4hn ,nri0 mr. la q
pared for any policy which will reduce the
wages of the American laborer to the European
standard.
Gentlemen who argue that the protective
tariff of 1861 has made it impossible for US to
build ships in competition with England, as we
did up to few years before the breaking out
of the Rebellion, entirely ignoring the fact that
the retrograde in ship-building for the foreign
carrying trade, began soon after 1900, while
the tariff of 1916 was in force; and was due to
the great change from wood to iron, and sail to
steam, through which ocean tonnage was pass
ing In 1856 there were built in the United
States, 3S1 ships and barks of the class employ
ed in foreign tonnage. In 1897 the NUMBER de-
cliped to 251; in 1858 to 122; ia 1859 to 80, and
in 1850 to ITO. The decline from 1850 to 1909,
was more rapid even than since the war, as VI
ships were built in 1866, and in 1873 the num-
Der was 81, with smaller number since. Ii
the worlds commerce was carried on IN wood
en- sailing ships to day, as it was before the war
we could successfully compete now with Eng
land in building vessels, as we did in 1856.
The retrograde movemeuH in American
ocean tonnage was not due to tariffs, but was
contemporaneous with the great change in
ocean transportation wrought by the applica-
zion of the propeller and the compound engine,
and the use of iron steamships.
Gentlemen ignore also the fact that Just
as this great change began to attract attention
in this country, we were prevented from tax
ing early measures to adapt ourselves to the
new situation by the war OF the Rebellion
bursting upon us and engrossng all our ener-
They conveniently forget, too, that in addi-
tion to the inevitable drawbacks OF war, by the
aid of England the Anglo-C Confederate
cruisers, directly and indirectly, swept one
third of our ships from the ocean; and that
when peace returned the difficulties which en-
yroned us legacies Of the civil war, interfered
with measures of relief
Taking advantage of this opportunity, Eng
land redoubled her efforts to seize upon the
carrying trade of the world, and bS means OF
government encouragement and aid-to which
/ shall presently refer-she is rapidly accomp-
fishing her object
Had it not been for this great change in the
foreign carrying trade, wrought by steam, iron
and English government aid, reinforced by the
Auglo-C Confederate cruisers, the United States
would have speedily surmounted the draw
backs of civil war, would have gone on lncreas-
ing her ocean tonnage, and would have to-day
had command of the ocean commerce..
The free ship advocates tell us that however
L. haox, fAN