Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1883-01-24

1USI In ! 00AASsA
RIG salPs...wHAT Gould We %
WITH TMEM9
The New York Sun, in discussing the
free ship question, says that at presen'
Il costs ON the average $:0to $l5 Per ton
more 70 build an iron sailing vessel, and
from $25 to $35 per ton more to nuiio
an iron Steamship. in the United States
than il costs ON the Clyde. Let Us sup
pous that this difference were extln-
ruished, either by admitting all the ma
tsrials required for shipbuildlng free
of duty, or by giving our snipownels
the right to purchase ships built abroad
or bv the Joint operation Of both reme-
die. Could We afford to use these
cheap ships after We had got themf
That is question which gave great
deal of trouble to the Select Committee
appointed by both Houses OF Congress
TO investigate the causes OF the decline
Of our foreign carrying trade.
Il il certain that without material
changes in existing laws cheap ship
would be cheap elephant, for the sim
pie reason that it costs Us moro TO man
tain and sail vessels than it costs our
competitors. This Is conclusivsly es-
tablished by the fact that, although Tor
some ton years We have been able TO
build wooden sailing vessels about az
oheaply as they can be built anywhere.
vet there has been, during the same pc
Rod, q steady diminution in the ton
mage even of our wooden sailing ships
employed in foreign commerce. More
than half our exports and imports are
still transported by sailing vessels, yet
only third of this half is conveyed
under the American flag. The carrying
trade Of Norway, which has 30 signally
increased during the last twenty years,
has been built up at our expense; yet
the Norwegian merchant navy is almost
exclusively composed Of wooden vessels
II there we're not, in other words, an
iron ship or steamship in existence, it
would still be impossible for as, without
more extensive changes in our maritime
legislation than those which merely AZ
feet the first cost of vessels. to hold our
own against our rivals on the ocean.
How, then, il may be asked, did our
shipping interest happen to be SO pros
porous in the decade preceding the civil
war, when iron had not superseded
wood to any large extent in the con-
struction Of bulls. and when steam had
not AZ yet been generally applied to tho
movement OF freight as we'll AZ passen-
gers? Our wooden sailing ships could
then b operated at profit, whereas
our vessels of the same material and
motive power must now be worked at a
loss, because they were free from the
disabilities relatively TO their competi-
torn against which our shipowners now
contend in vain. 1t il not that VIC have
imposed new and grievous burdens on
ocean navigation-we have done no
thing except to levy duties on materials
and to prohibit the purchase Of foreign
vessels, restriction, which bear only on
the cost Of construction and repair
bat that 70 should have neglected to
keep pace with our competitors in dis
oarding antiquated, vexatious, and OPP
pressive regulations which press with
an intolerable weight upon the shipping
interest. In q word, It 10 not SO much
what We have done AZ what We have
left undons. Up to 1854 the
English statutes relating 10 ship
ping were substantially the same ~
ours. From that day TO this little or no
change has been made in oLr navigation
laws, which remain az they were orig
inally framed more than eighty years
ago. On the other hand, Great Britain,
our chief rival for the ocean carrying
trade, began In 1854 process Of revis-
ion which has steadily gone on, and
whose purpose has bsen the removal of
all legislative distractions TO the invest
msnt Of capital in shipping and tho ex-
pansion Of British trade. The result Of
this action ON the part Of the British
Parliament, coupled with the complete
indifference Of our Congress to the SUBJ
jest, II that the American shipowner
can no moro vie with his British CON-
pstitor than q medieval champion,
loaded down with his suit Of chain az
NOR, could run race with a modern
athlete stripped to the buff.
Among tho old laws enacted when the
conditions Of navigation were widely
different from what they are at present,
but whioh sin press like an incubus ON
our merchant navy, IL the regulation
oompslling tho payment Of three
mouths wages 10 every seaman dis
charged from an American vessel by
United States Consul In q foreign port.
The grievance consists not only in the
large amount Of money extorted from
opr shipovners, bat in the premium Of
Tered for neglect Of duty and infraction
Of discipline on the part Of a ships
company, and in the delays and con-
tsntious arising from tho proceedings
before consular officers. No other
country now subjects its mercantile
marine 10 suoh q burden. and the impo-
sition Of II upon ours il tsntamount to |
serious discrimination against Amsri- |
can vessels. Another Law upon our
statute book allows American vessels
not snors than go for conveying a |
wrecked. disabled, or destitute Ameri-
can sailor from foreign port to the
United States. Il il plain that when
ever the voyage exceeds moderate
number Of days this regulation entails
no magnificent los upon the vessel.
Again, our statutes require that not only
the master. or captain. but also all
other officers Of an American vessel,
ohAll, under all circumstances, be citi- |