The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1884-03-17
The Question of Ships.
Congressman Dingtey's Report Against
the Free Ships Bill-Suggesfive Facts
About Subsidies.

Congressman Dingley, in his report against Cen
eral Slocum's free-ship bill, makes five chief points,
First, that it would be injustice to our ship
builders in view of the fact that neither the exist
ing tariff any proposed tariff legislation admits
any other completed manufacture involving so
much skilled lab as does vessel without the pay
of at least 80 per cent duty second, the free
ship policy looks to the purchase abroad OF what
ever vessels may want for the foreign trade and
would inevitably result in the destruc ion of the
ship building iadustry in this country. The aver
age wages paid in an Ame ican ship-yard are at
least SO per cent higher than in the English ship
yards With this disadvantage, no capitalist would
invest the m )ney required to establish iron ship
yards in this country or asyet iron ship-buildne is
in its infancy here) with ihe knowledge that they
must compete with English bull iers in a common
market; third, If we should adopt the policy of ad
mitting toreizn built ships free of duty to American
register, and thus open any one the privilege OF
buying vessels the Clyde for the foreign trade, it
would not materially increase the tonnage of tire
smerican merchant marine Tor two reasons: First
because ship building and ship owning are so link
ed tog ther that the one interest rises and falls
with the other; and second, because the chief OBJ
stace 10 revival of our oreign caI rying trade is
: OF The first cost of American vessel, but the
difficulty of prohtably sailing it after 1t is builL
f1u tn tie most serious objection to the free hip
policy in the United States is that its inevitable ten
deucy Would be to prevent the successful mainten-
of such extensive shiFyards essential to
bu Id war els and transports tor offensive and
defensive purposes and thus to deprive the nation
f an Indispensable meaus of defence. The Deces-
sity which exists for maintaining extensive private
government in the exercise of reasonable prudence
adopt such policy will look to the build ng of
our merchant marine, as well as our ships OF war y
this country Going on to speak OF mail subsi-
dies which will be urged upon Congress, Mr..
olngley says:
In the case of steamships, OF which we have SO
few in the foreign trade it is useless to think of es
tablishing American lines to any considerable ex-
tent in petition wi the firmly established lines
of England, lines established at the start by the
f1nda
the name of .'maii pay,"-u less our government
considers the end If sufficient Importance to offer
liberal mail pay for the investment Of the requisite
capital by Americans in such enterprises. simple
statement of what England has done in this way to
establish and maintain her steamship lines in com
parison with the almost entire absence of similar
aid American lines in the reign ade. goes far
to explain the humiliating position in which we find
ourselves on the ocean. Commencing with 1882
when England paid he Cunard line $425, 600 un-
der the of mail pay that country has steadily
pursued the policy of extending liberal grants to
her steamship lines. payi9g MOI not less @ ,ss snan sSS9o
ever So, ,000,0 o. increasing the amount whenever
any of her lines met with serious competition, and
decreasing it whenever competition was withdrawn.
In the last fiscal year for which we have report,
England paid her foreign steamship lines for mail
service over So 6Oo,oU0, while the United States,
under the restrictions OF laws enacted by Congress,
paid American foreign-golng steamers less than
$50,00O and fore gn steamship lines 81 1855 for
carry yipg our mails For transporting our mails be
tween San Francisco and China Japan and Austria
liza we paid the leading American steamship line
Subsidy of III, while England paid her Chi
ma and East India lines for 'mail service" the sum
of 81 100000. We paid the American line to Bra
zil ''subsidy'' of S4,619, while Eng
land paid her Brazilian line for mail
serviceh s56. 500 We paid the, American
lines to the West Indies $12,298, while England
paid her West INDIA lines S406,811. What makes
this neglect of American foreign steamship service
all the more conspicuous is the fact that
We have no difficulty in giving reasonable mail pay
to our coastwise steamers. In 1884, for example,
paid S142 706 for mail service to five coastwise
steamship lines, empl yng small steamers, whose
total mileage was $247 $3.50 miles, compensation
OF nearly 30 cents per miles while in The year
paid only $31 405 for mail service to five Amer
lean lines in the foreign trade, employing large
steamers of the class needed by the government in
time of war, with a mileage of 1,1Sl ,309 miles,
compensation of less than three cents per mile. In
the last fiscal year paid coaswise steamers for
mail service route of 300 miles, between Ceda ar
KEYS and Key est, Fla, the sum of So 900, or
s 0O per mile, and at the same time we paid the
American Steamship Company for carrying the
mails between this country and England, on
route Of 1000 miles, $1,000, or only 81 per mile.
When Congress shall remove the differential
cha ges on American vessels and provide for as
reasonable mail pay to American steamship lines
III the foreign Iade as it cheerfully grants TO
coastwise steamers a simple act of justice, and
not Till then, we shall begin to our steam ma
rine on the oce an Increase our iron shpyards null
tpy, our naval reserve for the emergency of war
enlarge and our trade with South America and
other countries, with which we have no direct com-
munication, develop.