Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-12-11
OUR sHIP-BUILDrNG PoLICY.
Some Interesting Extracts Prom the Report
OF the Commissioners of Navigation

THE PROTECTIVE AND CNPRorEcrrvE POLICIES /
DISCUSSED AND THEIR RESULTS sHows-AxERI- \
cAx-BUur SHIPS SHOWN TO BE MORE DURABLE |
THAN rHosE OF FOREIGN MANUFACTURE |
Mr.. Bates commissioner Of navigation, who |
has supervision Of the laws relating 10 vessels |
and seamen, has submitted his annual report |
to the Secretary of the Treasury. He gives
short history Of our shipping policy in the fol-
lowing words:
elm the beginning IL was protective From
1915 to 1928, by different acts of legislation, our
shipping in the foreign trade was stripped Of
protection and put under free-trade policy
called maritime reciprocity the shipping in
the domestic trade continuing under protec-
ton to the present time. So We have now two
policies and two resulting effects Of our legisla-
ton. Under free shipping competition our
marine in foreign trade has persisted. while
under the ole protective policy our shipping in
domestic trade has fourished."
The commissioner shows the policy Of Great
Britain, under which she rose TO supremacy on
the sea, and explains Why she changed then
to free shipping. He says:
This was not because she was moved by
liberal considerations, but because she could
rot acquire the control of American trade. un-
less she accepted in full free shipping
policy and supplied herself with more tonnage
than she was able to build"
Referring to the American marine he SAYS:
beginning with about 25 per cent OF car
riage in the foreign trade. in six years time
the proportion increased to 20 per cent and
thereabout remained until the war with Eng
land, 1872. Recovering from the losses of that
war, in five years time We had again about 20
per cent of carriage in our foreign trade. I'm
fortunately, Congress began TO strip off the
protection first put on, and, commencing IN
1926, American carriage in the foreign trade
began to decline. Thereafter, year by year, as
different nations took advantage Of our help
lessness and as Congress has legislated for good
or evil influence. the course has been down.
ward to the present time.
LOSSES OF THE UNITED STATES.
"While the unprotection of our shipping in
the foreign trade has been advantageous to
many foreign nations, since 1919 it has been
turned to most account by Great Britain, espe-
cially in the indirect trades. And while the
change of policy from protection to non-pro-
lection by the maritime nations may have
injured or hindered few nations IN their pur-
suits Of the sea il has ruined the trade OF none
but the United States-first, because we have
longest adhered to it; second, because the
social conditions of our people are higher than
those of other nations; third, because the most
OF those nations have some time since returned
70 some kinds of protecton-subsidles,b ountles
or other determinations 1t has been sup
posed that our principal losses of carriage
occurred during the war for the Union; tins
report shows that before the war We lost Of
import carriage .46 per cent and of export
carriage l4.6o per cent During the wax our
losses were of import carriage SOL per cent
and of export carriage 46 per cent since the
war We have lost in import carriage SO per
cent, Of export carriage IL per cent
BAD EFFECTS OF FREE TRADE
The commissioner considers what he calls
''the two leading remedies advocated by free
traders namely, tariff reduction and free
ships" and says: .'If the protective tariff has
reduced our shipping per capita or cut down
our proportion OF carriage. either OF imports
or exports, it should be easy to point out the
time and give the figures in each case of its en-
actment augmentation. Reductions OF the
tariff, without exception, have been advan-
tageous to foreign rather than American SHIPS
but most so in lS46, when another bad act, the
ware housing law, was passed. In single
year after that act foreign shipping gained and
American lost 10 per cent OF import
carriage ard IL per cent OF export carriage:
In short the remedy of tariff reduction IN ald
of the marine is found without support IN his
tory. In the long run the intensltcation OF
free trade conditions only results IN benefits TO
our rivals. The contention that high tarif
restricts commerce and thus reduces QUE car
riage is confutec by the fact that since the war,
under the high tariff complained OF, our vol
ume of foreign commerce greatly exceeds the
ever had. The average commerce per capita
under the low tariffs from 1876 to lo6O was
SlS.5S per annum, whereas the average CON-
| merce per capita since 1866, the year after the
| war, is S26.96, or As per cent greater"
! FREE SHIPS A DEADLY BLOW TO SHIP BUILDING.
In regard to the free importation of ships
| the commissioner says: 1.-THE essence OF this
remedy is the idea of cheap ships. but Its ad-
vocates never teach in what its principle con-
| sist3- Cheapness is a mere trade cry 1he
| economy of cheapness Is fanciful. Really, az
| as this measure is of British suggestion, it ID
the purchase of British-built iron or steel yes-
sells that is meant and advocated. We are 70
| buy these, first because they are imported
| second, because they are of iron and not OF
| wood; third, because they are cheap. III we
could build even cheaper than the British,
either in metal or wood, an objection would
still remain to our having shipping not OF
British build, because, to have 1t oil
our own make is to challenge rivalry,
not alone in building, but in own
| ing, since building is a strong, even an indls-
pensable, auxiliary of owning. To possess the
skill and practice the power OF building our
own ships would be to furnish yards and shops
and supplya naval force, with shipwrlghts.
| engineers and seamen for maritime defense.
| An American-built marine means a republican
| naval power. These things are not IN British
| interest, or in the line of free trade policy.
| because the former is to rule the sea and the
latter opposes the strengthening of protective
government. Free ships would be deadly
blow to ship building in the United States
| such blow is SO much in the interest of Eng
land that no true American can be found &c
deliver it.
| cHEAPNEss NO TEST OF ECONOMY.
| "As for cheap ships parsimony and not econ
omy has made the British iron ship bargain.
But in iron ship building cheapness was not al
| WAYS the makeshift for merit. In the infancy
| of the art when il cost half or third more to
| build of iron than wood in England, the advo-
Gates of the new industry gave out that ves-
/ sells built of iron would last twice as long az
| those of wood. Here was a recognition OF
| true economy in ship owning. There was nc
experience to prove this superiority, but it was
| accepted as a matter OF faith, as it justified a
home industry. While good iron vessels are
still costly, such as are built generally have de-
| creased durability. The average iron British
| built sailing ship has not the durability OF
| either the British or American-built wooden
vessel which she has displaced. Therefore,
cheapness in price is no test at all Of supe-
| riority in economy
The report goes on to investigate the CON-
parative durability of American and British
| built vessels of all kinds, with the result o!
| proving that, on almost all points, the Ameri-
| can ship yard excels the British in its produc-
lions. British Lloyds register book, contain
ing particulars of all the shipping of the world,
is taken for authority.
SUPERIORITY OF AMERIcAS-BuILT vEssELs
In q table giving o comparison Of survival OF