Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-12-01
The Shipping Problem.
Nelo York Times.

The Shipping Problem.
Nelo York Times.
The joint Congressional committee which
has been inquiring into the causes Of the
decline of American shipping has closed
its sessions in this city. 1t has devoted
hve days to receiving information and
| suggestions from those claiming to be i'm a
! position to know something of the subject.
| There has been good deal of variety both
In the information and in the opinions
offered by those testifying before the COM
mittee, but there is a clear dividing line
between the theories that are held in
regard to the question. In fact, all
| opinion on economical and CONNER
| cial questions and the relation of
be divided by the same line. On
the other hand, it is claimed that
trade and industry should be left, so far
as possible, to regulate themselves. The
only interference of the government should
be for the purpose of protecting the rights
OF person and property and obtaining reye-
nue. for its own legitimate needs. Freedom
alike from restraint and from attempts at
stimulation is believed by those who hold
to the theory of nOn-interference to be con-
ducive to the most healthy development
and the highest prosperity. On the other
side, it is cOntended that it is the business
OF the government to encourage, to foster.
to build up and to protect a great variety
of home industries and home interests.
This may be done by restrictions upon
competition from abroad and by direct
stimulus applied in the form of subsidies
or bOunties at home.
This difference of opinion as to the pro-
per relation of the government to industry
and commerce is at the bottom of the di-
vergence of sentiment on the subject of
tariff laws and shipping laws. Most of
what are called our navigation laws are
acts of early date, and they were intended
to protect American sailors, American
shipping and American ship building and
by protection TO promote the development
OF our marine. American sailors are pro-
tected by being allowed to draw certain
amount of their pay in advance and being
able to get three months extra wages if
discharged at a foreign port. The result
is that they fall into the hands of a
class OF professional boarding house
keepers who get them into debt to
themselves for board, clothes and
liquor and then ship them Off their hands
and get all the advance pay; and when
they get abroad they manage by incomDe-
tency or bad behavior to get discharged,
collect their extra pay, and are sent home
by COnsuls to go through the process
again. 1t is the almost universal testi-
mOny that this kind Of protection is equal
ests of shipmasters. 1t is one of the minor
burdens of American shipping that its
owners and masters are not allowed to
make their own bargains fOp the employ
ment of crews and IA deal as freely with
them as other shtpowners and shipmasters
are allowed to do. There are numerous
other burdens in the form of Consular fees.
tonnage dues, pilOtage fees, port charges
and general taxes which are not intended
to be protective, but which are exceeding
ly discouraging tG the owners Of vessels.
While it is q question whether any
American merchant could long afford to
run vessels in the foreign trade il they
were given to him, he is rot allowed to
buy ship and try the experiment unless
1t is built ia this country. Whatever
might be the case under different condi-
tlons, 1t is unquestiOnably true that under
present conditions an American built iron
steamer costs considerably more than
British built iron steamer. 1t isoAlY nee
essary to know this fact and she one other
iact that no American 10 allowed to buy
and run under the flag of his country a
ship of foreign build to understand fully
the cause of the decline of American
shipping and the transfer of the carving
trade to foreign vessels. These facts ex7
plain it completely. If our peculiar bur
dens and restrictions were removed from
the shipping business and our capitalists
were allowed to buy vessels wherever
they could get them cheapest, and conse-
quently as cheaply as their competitors
would obtain them, il is quite possible that
we might regain our share in the carving
trade. 1t is certain that we should unless
the aforesaid capitalists had more profita-
Die uses for their money! in which case il |
would be proved 20 be economical to let
others do the carrying while we did better |
by producing and manufacturing.
But then the advocates of intervention /
set up the cry that we ought for our own /
national good to build ships as well as to /
sail them, and we can mover do this if our |
merchants are allowed to buy them cheap |
er abroad. But unless we can build them /
as cheaply as they are built abroad our
merchants cannot afford to buy them and /
enter into competition with foreign mer-
chants who get them at the lowest price, |
and they certainly will not be
built unless they are to be
bought. The only sensible course
is to see whether we can build them as
cheaply or not. If duties are removed T.
from the materials which enter into their |
construction and equipment, aA9 If bur
densome restrictions are removed from
their employment after they are built. we |
shall soon aud out whether we can build |
them or not in competition with cther /
countries. At the same time no Eeal harm
could come from admitting 10 register I
toreign-built vessels; fOr If we could build |
as good ones at no greater cost arr /
own would find a market In .nfte nc /
them, and If we could not there wnuId he |
no market for ours in any case. ''' ~
/. Under an application of the theory of /
lreeWem and non-interferenee of the gov
ernment, We should have an opportunity
Oh determining what we could and could
not 40, WAIfe at present it is q matter of
speculation merely. If we could compete
IN ship building and the carrying trade
prohtably, we should do so, and if we
could not il would be because we had bet
ter use for our capital and labor and saved
money by having our carrying dQue lor us. |
But the marine prOtectiOnist claim that
we should build shipa and engage in
the carrying trade for our own nation-
al good, whether it is profitable
or NOT. There is but one way in which it
can be done, if it would not prove profita.
BILE under policy Of freedom, and thai is
by the payment of bOunties to ship build
ers aha subsidies to ship owners, and that
Is what these advocates OF protection and
are forced to urge. In
other words, they would have the people
of the country taxed to build up the ship
ping interest. This would put vet one
more burden on the production and labor
which pertain 20 the natural resources and /
of the country. This is What 1
Mr.. Roach and the Philadelphia econo- /
mists would do.
A oono1tnnffuo oa,.orl, L. xa.,.-.-.-.