New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-03-17
AMERICAN SHIP.BUILDING.
AN ARGUMENT AGAINST FREE SHIPS.
Mr.. DINGLEY on THE NECESSITY FOR sHIP-YARDs,
AND on THE TRUE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
ley TELEGRAPg To The TRIBUEEI

jectons to free shipsf" Representative DIngey
asked.
"Such policy would be unjust to the American
ship-building interest, because il would admit
ships free Of duty, while no other manufactured
article can be so admitted. The policy would re-
suit in tho destruction of the ship-budng indus
try In the country, and lead 10 reliance on Eng
land for whatever iron and steel vessels might
want. With the start that England has in iron
ship-building, and the advantage she has in cheap
labor, no one could be induced to invest the
money required to establish iron bodybuilding
yards here, if he were to be met at
once with free competition by English builders.
The suggestion of free ships for the foreign trade
is impracticable few persons would think Of buy
ing foregn-built vessels unless they could use them
in the cOastwise well foreign trade and there
fore the legislation recently proposed would only
be the entering wedge 10 free ships for all trades
The free admission to American register of large
steamships would deprive of the yards needed in
war to build vessels for defence
Would free ships tend to revive American COM
mercep
Il think not because ship-building and ship
owning are linked together that the interest
rises and falls with the other and because the chief
obstacle TO a revival of our foreign carrying trade
is not the first cost Of an American vessel but the
difficulty of prOftably sailing it after it is built
1t is suggestive that persons interested in American
shipping generally regard free ships in matter
! beneficial to the American merchant marine. Not
free ships, but the revolution from wood to iron
and from wind to steam, since about 1855, has
caused Englands merchant marine to gain on ours.
England adopted her free-ship policy in 1919, and
in the five years her merchant marine increased
less than half as much as ours.
"The Italians have tried free ships for twenty
N IL nnO q d
ports and imports were carried in Italian steamers,
while ., 1873 1873 tons carried by English
steamers. The Italians have reached the cOnclu-
sion that free ships are iniurng rather than bene-
fitting them and that their true policy is to encour-
age their own shp-yards.
COMMERCIAL INDEPENDENCE AND NATIONAL SAFETY
"Some PERSONS continued Mr. Dingley, seem
to think that the main object in regvng the
foreign carrying trade and increasing merchant
marine is to secure our share of the profits of the
business. If this be so, then Americans can secure
the profits just as well by buying nearly entire in
tereSts In British vessels and sailing them moro
prOftably under the British than under the Amer
lean flag We do not need additional legislation to
secure the profits of the foreign carry ing trade. It
is evident that the substantial reasons
for encouraging the American merchant
marine relate 10 our commercial inde-
pendence and National defence and safety.
The legislation of the first Congress under the
Constitution which the free ship advocates desire
to repeal predicated on the view that we must
have American ship-yards, not only to maintain
merchant marine. but also a resource in time of
war. In the debate in the first Congress on the
tonnage BILL Mr. Madison based his support OF tho
navigation laws the idea that ships and ship
yards are as essential forts for National security.
Mr.. jefferson, in his famous report on commerce,
NJ; hlv
establishments in readiness for shipbuilding
England builds so per cent Of her war vessels in
private ship-yards to encourage their maintenance
1t was the little Monitor, built in private ship
yard that saved the seaboard cities from destruc-
ton by the Merrimac. The private ship-yards OF
the North built the vessels that enabled the Cow
ernment to blockade Southern forts and starve the
rebellion. Under free-ship policy, in what des-
perate condition this country would be in Of
war with England!
GROWING NEW INDUSTRY
If we cannot now bnd our own vessels the
Government should bend Its energies to bringing
about this result instead of adopting the policy or
looking TO England for whatever vessels we may
want. Since the passage of the act of June q, 1872
admitting certain material for wooden ships for
the fore gn trade free of duty, we have built such
vessels as cheapy quality for quality any other
nation. Iron shipbuilding in this country is only
ten years old. Indeed, it is only five years
since the resumption of specie payments
gave lis fair start. During that tlmo
we have made great progress until to-
day. according to the testimony of ship
builders, il costs only per cent more 10
build an iron sailing vessel II to 10 per cent more
TO build such passenger steamships as cross the At
lantic, and 20 per cent more to builo freight
steamer here than on the Clyde. Builders believe
that much of this difference can be overcome with
five wears more experience provided toIeign-bullt
ships are not admitted to American registry, and
also provided it can be made profitable to sail
American vessels, so as to create large demand
for them The House Committee on Shipbudng
has bill now under consideration 70 extend the
net of SO SO as 10 aid shlpbuilders in overcoming
this difference.
THE BURDENS OF THE LAW.
Assuming that the first cost of an iron steamerot
Q 600 tons is now $500 900 in England and S57O,-
600 here then the interest, insurance and depreel-
alton on this difference will be about per cent per
annum But the charges imposed by law on an
American vessel outside of local taxes, are about
per cent showing that the burden on the sailing OF
an American vessel, which may be removed by
Congress- is twice great as that arising from the
difference in first cost For these various National lees
and burdens and pilOtage over $2,5Oo,00o IS e1-
acted from American vessels every year Let lheso
first be removed 50 far as they may be, so tnat an
American vessel may be as economically sailed as
the vessels of our rivals.
GOVERNMENT AID REQUIRED.
while the sweeping away of these burdens VIII
enable American sailing vessels TO compete with
English sailing vessels, and DO something to and
steamship competition yet we shall have few
American steamship lines unless We adopt the
nolcv of encouraging their establishment by liberal
mail paw II was in this way that England estab'
lished the most of her original lines. Formore than
thirty years she has given from $3OOO,OOO to
S6 OOO,O 600 annually TO aid her steamship lines.
under the name of mail pay while we have
done comparatively nothing. In the last fiscal
wear for which have report, England
paid her foreign steamship lines for mail service
over So coo, 600 while the United States, under