Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1884-03-25

tnat TWO -tnirus OF tnem are OutSpOk0n III
his support.
Decline Of American Shipping.
This subject is discussed in the last mum
Der OF the North American Review by
Hon. Nelson Dingley. Jr., and Mr.. Johr
Goldman. Mr.. Dihgley starts out by re-
minding his readers that the decline o.
the American merchant marine is confined
to shipping employed in the foreign trade
and does not extend to tonnage in the
coastwise trade. Our fleet engaged in thu
coastwise trade has been growing in eff
cheney since 1855. During the war i,
continued to increase, and for the last
fourteen years has shown a growth Of
more than twenty-five per cent. rate Of
increase far greater than that shown by
the coastwise merchant marine of any
other nation. This increase has been at.
tanned against the competition of com.
petins railroad systems, which have Sc
cured large amount of business that
would have gone to vessels under former
conditions.
| On the other hand our merchant marine
in the foreign trade has steadily declined
since 1855. The decline began before
the Civil War. the average rate of falling
off being about the same before as since
the war. The explanation of the fact
that while the coastwise merchant marine
increased. and that in the foreign carrying
trade declined, partly is that only YES
sells of American build are entitled to an
American register or enrolment and
license. and thus the coastwise trade is
restricted to American vessels, while ves-
sells of foreign nations are permitted to en-
gage on equal terms with American vessels
in our foreign carrying trade. Another
cause for losing our business on the ocean
was the revolution in marine architecture,
the change from wooden to iron vessels
and from sails to steam. This change be-
gan to be felt percepiibly as early as 1855.
The advantage which up to that time we
had enjoyed in being able to build wood
en- vessels cheaper than England. was lost
when vessels began to be constructed of
iron; for England can build of that ma
terisl. with her cheap labor. as cheaplv at
least as we can. At the same time, while
this revolution was going on, Great
Britain seeing her opportunity to regain
her former supremacy on the ocean, be-
gan to extend special fostering care to the
building and business of her merchant
marine. sweeping away whatever in her
laws hampered it. and giving liberal
grants for the establishment of steamship
lines on all the important rouees of COM
merce. Under these favoring conditions
her merchant fleet grew and prospered
In the United States, on the contrary,
nothing was done up to the time of the
breaking out of the war to encourage the
new order of things in the construction OF
vessels, and after the war commenced
cruisers like the Alabama, built and own
ed in England, preyed upon our vessels
so that they we're nearly driven from
the seas and our carrying trade largely
went into the hands of foreign nations.
Our government has removed. since the
war; some of the burdens under which our
shipbuilders and shipowners have labored,
but many difficulties which the government,
can and should remove vet remain to
harass and depress our shipping. and moth
ing scarcely has been attempted in the
way of competition with the foreign steam
ship lines established on all important
ocean routes of travel and commerce.
Mr.. Dingley shows conclusively by facts
and figures that the protective tariff has
nothing to do with the decay of our foreign
carrying trade. Free ship legislation he
says would be practically the adoption
of policy looking to English rather than
American shipyards for whatever vessels
we may require for deep sea service. -
This would not revive the American for
eign carrying trade. Shipbuilding and
shipowning are linked together, mo ex.
ample" he says, lean be found of a people
who have obtained any prominence on the
ocean unless they have pursued a policy
looking to the home construction of their
vessels" We must have our own ship
yards and build our own vessels, both to
preserve our carrying trade and for nation.
al protection in case of foreign wars.
We should be in poor condition to contend
with Great Britain on the ocean, if we
were obliged to depend upon her ship.
yards for naval vessels. or had no mer-
chant marine to furnish trained seamen to
man our ships of war when desired. We
have depended thus far for national pro-
lection upon vessels built in American
shipyards, and it will be astonishing if We
do not do so in the future.