The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1888-07-14
The Tariff and shIpDInc.

The PRESS has conceded and still comedies
that the tariff on material used in the con-
struction of ships did operate to prevent the
revival of shipbuilding for the foreign car
rying trade. To what extent we do not
undertake to say. and it is utterly impossi-
BILE for anybody ter&emonstrate. What we
nave not conceded. and what we still do not
sze, II what appeared to be implied by
the connection in which Mr.. Putnam's state
ment was found, namely, that the failure of
our shipbuilding to revive after the war was
due to the protective system. The PROPOSE
tlon which we maintain is this that the
tariff on materials employed in the construc-
tion of ships destined for the foreign trade
became, when those materials were SO en-
ployed, tariff for revenue only, discriminate
ing not in favor of our own citizens but in
favor Of citizens of foreign countries. It
follows if this proposition be sound, that it
was not tariff imposed in accordance with
the principles of protection which did the
mischief to our shipbuilding but tariff
imposed in contravention of those principles.
We thought we made our position perfectly
plain in the article on the subject published
few days ago, but as the Argus avoids
all discussion of this point, and simply
contents itself with affirming that the tariff
interfered with the revival of American
shipbuilding and producing evidence to sus-
tain this non-controverted point we presume
that we were not understood and therefore
restate cur proposition.
Mr.. Lynch, when he proposed the repeal
of the duties referred to, was acting in ac-
cordance with the principles of protection.
Furthermore the principal opposition he
met came from free traders, or as they pre-
Ter to be called this year. tariff refermers.
The fundamental idea OF protective duty
is to foster and assist American enterprises.
Now what was the effect ef the duty on ma
terials entering into tne construction of yes
sels-on iron foE instancep Generally the
duty on iron vas beneficial to American cap
italand American labor. 1t fostered and as
sisted great industries. 1t reserved for them
the American market and made their exist
ence possible, while no injustice was done to
other industries and enterprises dependent
upon the iron industry, because as a rule
they too had the same protection which the
IRON industry enjoyed. But the case of ships
destined for the foreign trade constituted an
exception. They enjoyed no protection
whatever. After they were built they must
compete with foreign ships on equal terms.
Our laws made no discrimination in their
favor. The British ship could come to our
ports and enter into the business of carrying
our products to foreign lands on precisely
the same terms as our own vessels. But
while our laws granted ships in the foreign
trade no protection whatever, they imposed
he, n hnr fox To- 1,
tariff on the material of which they were
built. British ships were not burdened with
this tax, for under British laws the materials
of which British ships were built were free
of duty. The effect, therefore, of our tariff
on shipbuilding materials, when those ma
terials were used in the construction of YES
sells, was discrimination against our own
citizens and in favor of the citizens of for
eign country. Clearly then this tariff under
the circumstances was in contravention of
the protective system, and was operating to
destroy an American industry. Mr. Lynch's
bill to remit the duty on foreign materials
which were to be used in the construction
of ships for the foreign trade was, therefore,
bill to remit duty imposed in contraven-
ton of the protective system. Under the pro-
tective system too, articles Of home manufac-
ture destined for export had always been al
lowed a drawback; the part of Mr.. Lynch's
bill, therefore, which provided for drawback
on material produced in this country, when
used in the construction of ships for
the foreign trade was strictly in line
with the protective system, for such ships
were practically articles of export. So just
and reasonable proposition as Mr.. Lynch's
was, met, however, with continued and per-
sistent opposition. Who opposed it? Were
they the believers in a protective tariff
or were they the free traders, the tariff
reformers so called. Let Mr. Lynch, whom
Mr.. Putnam gives the credit of honesty,
and whom he called as witness, tell.
In a speech in the House in May, 1872. Mr..
Lynch said:
The advocates of free, ships upon this floor are
against admitting shipbuilding material free
The only condition upon which gentlemen who
favor this policy will consent to admit shipbuiid-
ing material free is that it shall be worked up
into the vessel in foreign country. These gen.
tlemen appear TO have particular prejudice
against the American mechanic, and take every
opportunity to discriminate against him.
Who were these advocates of free ships
that Mr.. Lynch says constantly opposed the
removal of duties ON imported shipbuilding
material, which duties Mr.. Putnam agrees
with Mr.. Lynch, were very potent in pre-
venting the revival of American shipbulld-
ing? They were members, almost every one
of them, of the Democratic party. The Hon.
S. S. Cox was one of them the same gentle
man who in the present House is shouting
loudly for revenue reform. He again and
again brought forward the proposition for
free ships when Mr.. Lynch's bill and bills
analogous to his were under consideration,
and it was always used as trig to stop the