The Portland daily press., 1884-01-12
Free Ships.
Congressman Disgicy Answers n Charge
of hncon sisfency.


In recent edition of the New York
World the following question was asked
Congressman Dingley, OF Maine, a protec-
f1ohlst and Republican, has introduced bill
to admit imported m4terials for iron vessels
free of duty. Ii material for constructing iron
vessels can be properly admitted frBe OF duty,
why may not materials and machinery for
making all other manufactured articles? Why
not everything that any citizen wants? Why
not come II once to what we must have-the
admission free of duty of foreign built ships to
American registry? Yet Congressman Ding
ley opposes tree ships. Will he explain this
apparent inconsistency Of q protectionlsl2
To the above Mr.. Dngley replies as fol-
lows through the columns of his paper, the
Lewiston Journal:
"What Congressman Dingley proposes IL
10 admit free of duty, imported materials
for the construction of iron, as well as
wood vessels intended for the foreign trade,
and not for the coastwise trade. Twelve
years ago a Republican protectlonist Con-
gress passed law admitting free OF duty
imported timber, manila, iron bolts, yellow
metal, etc., in short all the materials needed
to construct a wooden vessel intended for
the foreign trade. Mr.. Dingley proposes to
extend The principle then adopted 10 mate
rials necessary for the construction OF iron
vessels, in the expectation that this will
>ffeSd to the establishment OF iEol ship yards
In Mime and at other points.
"rhe World wants to know why other
manufacturers should not be PesH.tled 70
import free of duty, what lumber, iron, ma
chinery, etc., they may need, as well as
builders of vessels for the foreign trade. We
reply for the very good reason that manu-
facturer who produces other articles Is pro-
tected against foreign competition by the
iYnF an of Int IN fnFQlnn
products brought here for sale or use and
therefore has projected market. A build
er of vessels for our coastwise trade, has
similar protection by reason OF the fact that
foreign vessels are excluded from that trade.
"But vessels built in this country for the
foreign trade engage in q business which
cannot be directly protected, aud which
must be carried on on the ocean, open TO the
competition of the world. Tue principle Of
maritime reel procity, adopted nalf centu-
ry ago, by this c)untry, gives to English and
other foreign vessels the same right to enter
our harbors and land cargoes from abroad,
or load cargoes for foreign countries, on the
same terms, that ii gives our own vessels.
Hence as the government affords no pro-
tectiOn to our own vessels in the foreign
trade, against direct competition with for
eign vessels, as it affords other industries,
It is neither just nor wise, nor in accordance
with the principles of protection, TO ina
pose duty upon any imported materials or
supplies needed in their construction,
equipment or maintenance.
"The World and other Democratic or
gans urge free ships, |. e., the admission 10
Americ IN registry of foreign built ships
free of duty. Mr.. Dingley objects TO the
free ship project for these among other rea-
sons: First, it would be an outrageous In
justice to select the shipbuilding industry,
which produces completed manufacture
requiring more skilled labor than any other,
and put the imported products of this in
| dustry on the free list, while leaving a du-
| ty of thirty per cent or more on the i'm
| ported products of other completed manu-
| factures.
'S-cond, the project would inevitably an
initiate the American shipbuilding industry,
| for the reason that our shipbuilders could
not under existing circumstances pay Ameri-
can wages for skilled workmen sixty per
cent. higher here than on the Clyde, and
Guild vessels in direct competition with
England. Even if, in time, with free ma
'erials and duty o. thirty per cent. on for
eign bnilt vessels, iron steamships could be
successfully built in competition with the
Clyde, no one could be induced TO invest the
large capital required to establ sh a new
business aud gain the requisite experience,
1t they were to be at once open to the COM
petition Of iron shipping yards already sue
cessfullY esta aNlished and possessed Of expe-
rlence. To admit foreign built ships free Of
duty is to practically adopt the policy of
cooking to England 10 build our vessels for
uA.
Third, to surrender our shipbuiding to
England, is also to practically surrender cur
carrying trade to her, for all history shows
that the Nation which builds ships also sails
them. Shipbulding and shipowning al
ways go together.
Fourth, to rely on England to build our
vessels for us, is to make the United States
dependent upon England for means Of de-
fence in time of war, for Nation which
has not the shipyards and trained ship
wrights at hand to rapidly build war ves-
| sells when they are needed, can hardly be
| said to be safe. What would hive become
| If this Union II we had been obliged
| o send to the Clyde to build the Monitor In
| 1862? In what condition should we be In
i case trouble shoula arise with England, II
| We should adopt the free ship policy, and
| look to the Clyde to build our vessels?
'For these ard other reasons Congressman
Dingley strenuously opposes the free ship
| aroieet and believes that it 10 the duty OF
,ur government to ADOPT such policy as
will extend our shipyards and enable rs 10
build our own vessels"