National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-04-30
Free Trade I'm ships.

When tho bill to encourage the American
carrying trade was under consideration in the
house of representatives on Saturday last q
section was added by way of amendment
which transccnds all the original provisions
of the bill in Importance. Mr., Cox sprung
upon the house his favorite remedy for the
decline in American shipping-namely, free
trade in ships-aud it was adopted 1t cannot
DO said that tho amendment was not gormane
to the bill, although it properly belonged to
the tariff bill, and should have been discussed
in connection with the tariff.
SO important matter ought not to have
been forced through the house In the alb
sence of nearly one.haf the members. The
affirmative vote was Ill, the negative vote
go, and l42 members were absent. In full
| house the result might have been different.
1t is doubtful whether the bill will go
through the senate with this provision at
tached, and the result of Mr.. Cox's brilliant
strategy may DO the defeat of measure
which, MS it came from the committee, was
acceptable to the shipping interests, and was
not opposed by the tariff men. Tho labor of
tho select committee on shipbuilding and
shipowning interests in devising means for
restoring the ocean carrying trade, may be
entirely lost through the i'll advised zeal of a
doctrinaire who regards free trade as a
remedy for all our national ills.
The amendment (which was mado section
20 of the bill provides that it shall be lawful
for any citizen or citizens of the United States
to import iron and steel steamships of not
less than 1000 tons measurement free of duty;
and that such ships shall DO admitted to
American register, but must not be used in
the coastwise trade. What effect this provis-
ion may have upon the American carrying
trade experience only can demonstrate but
1t certainly will work injury to the builders
of iron and steel ships in this country. IL is
not likely that tho tariff on iron and steel
will be materially reduced; hence the ship
builder will BIO obliged to pay American prices
for his material and labor and at the same
time compete with the cheap labor Of foreign
countries in building vessel.
In the admirable speech of Mr.. George, of
Oregon, on the tariff BILL which appears in
the Record of yesterday, attention is called to
u fact which goes a great way toward &C.
counting for the decline in American ship
ping, although we are not aware that it had
previously been referred to either in the
debate on the shipping bill or the tariff bill.
Under the act of January Z, 1894, there was a
discrimination of 10 per cent. in tariff duties
on goods imported In American vessels-that
is, the tariff rates on goods imported In for
eign vessels were 10 per cent higher than il
imported in American vessels. This.protect-
i've clause remained in force fifty-fve years,
and under its operation our foreign carrying
trade and our shipbuil ding interests greatly
prospered
An act was passed in 1915 authorizing the
PRESIDENT to waive this discrimination in favor
of countries which admitted American ships
into their ports on equal terms but the
law was never carried into effect until 1S49
when Mr.. Bancroft, by direction of President
Iolhi COHCluueu COmulcICldl treaty VIII
England, by which the ports of both
: countries were made free to the vessels Of
each. By this time England had
begun to build iron ships, and the
differential duty being abolished, it was moi
long before she monopolized the greater por'
ton of the ocean carrying trade. We per.
mitted England to get the start of us in
building iron ships, and abolished the differ
entail duty just at the time she was best pre-
pared to take advantage of free trade.
0 Remembering these two historical facts, 1t il
Q not difficult to account for the decline OF
u A American shipping and American shipbui'd
ing.