The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1892-04-21
The "Free Ship Folly Again.

IHC Il ltV snip I1lll III VIC
nary form in which it has been reported
by the Southern and Western Democrats
of Speaker Crisps Committee on Mer-
chant Marine has attracted little OF no no
tice among our New England shipowners,
because it is known that it can never be-
come law. With characteristic Bour-
bon bigotry the Democratic leaders refus-
ed to give the shipowners a hearing,
thereby strengthening the popular i'm
preston that the free ship cause can
not stand the light of day: that it can only
be advanced by dark lantern methods,
and that it was only forced through the
committee by vigorous application of
the party whip and spur. against the bet
ter judgment of the members.
The measure which comes before Con
gress under these unfortunate auspices is
a free ship scheme Of the most eN-
IRENE and offensive description. 1t adj
mts foreign-built ships, their boilers and
machinery, to American registry abso-
lutely free of duty, and permits them to
engage not only in our foreign but our
coaStwiSe commerce. That. is, provides
for absolute free trade in the most elabo-
rate and important products of human
handiwork 1t should be remembered
that the materials for both wood and iron
vessels for the foreign trade are already
on the free list, placed there by Republic
can legislation; that the only difference in
cost between American and foreign ships
is due to the difference in the wages of
American and foreign labor. A free ship
bill under present conditions, therefore,
is a direct attack upon American mechan-
les engaged in great American industry.
1t is free trade run mad.
The experience of foreign nations with
the free ship policy is Instructive.
France and Italy for years acted upon the
Democratic theory that the trle and only
path to maritime greatness was to buy
their ships in British shipyar,s. The
result was the decay of native shipbuild
ing and 5he paralysis Of maritime enter
prise among their people. The merchant
| marine of France. under precisely the
same suicidal free ship policy which
Congressman Fithan and his cotton field
and prairie confreres are now advocating,
| fell from ops. 22S tons in 1875 to o1o. 2S9
in 1850. In 1881, in despair at the ruinous
| results of the free ship experiment,
France adopted a system of construction
and navigation bounties ion the especial
| benefit OF her steam marine This turned
| the tide Immediately in her favor. Her
| sailing tonnage continues to fall off, but
! the steam tonnage to her great port OF
| llavre. under the intlunce of subsidies and
bounteS, has nearly trebled elciting the
enthusiastic comments of even the British
Consul General NJ. Raynal. the leading
French authority in maritime affairs, de-
clareS that the bounty system ''has pro-
| duced all the useful results which its sup
| porters anticipated" so beneficial is it
universally believed to be that it is about
to be renewed for another ten-year period,
| with the exception that bounties hereafter
will be paid only to French built vessels,
which means the practical abandonment
OF the free ship folly by France. In Italy.
too, the merchant marine is being revived
| from the prostration to which ''free ships
had brought it, and the steam tonnage Of
the kingdom increased in four years from
| 1o5, 600 to 2S4, 600, a gain of 46 per cent.
Germany, OF all Continental nations, is
the one which used to be most quoted by
free ship advocates. The adoption OF
a free ship policy at first by Germany
was an imperative necessity. Twenty
years ago the empire was practically des-
titute of shipbuilding facilities. AS one
of our free ship contemporaries puts
it: "A generation ago there was no ma
chine works OF a higher character than
blacksmith shops in any of the North Sea
ports OF Hamburg, Bremen, Lubec and
Stettn.'' Under these circumstances, the
wisest, and, indeed the only, possible
course was to permit Germans to purchase
ships OF foreigners. In 10 or - years
Germany had a fairly respectable mer-
chant fleet, including many fine American
built vessels. But it is profoundly signif-
! icant that as soon as Germany had devel-
oped her iron and steel industries under
her protective tariff she began, step by
step, to discard the free ship policy
First, the edict went forth that all men
Of war must be built in German shipyarls
exclusively. This gave these yards a start.
\ short time afterward the Government
took another forward step. 1t subsidized
new lines Of steamships to the East Indies,
Africa and South America, and further
ordered that every new steamer receiving
a subsidy should be built in Germany, Of
German materials by German workmen.
Under this policy, the largest and fastest
Ships of the German marine are now pro
| duced in native shipyards. And it is only
for the common. inferior vessels that Ger
man subjects any longer resort to the
Clyde. AS soon as Germany shipbuild-
ing facilities approximate to those of the
lnited States it is probable that, follow
ing our example, the free ship theory
will be entirely abandoned.
! TO sum up, therefore. free ships have
been failure in Italy. They have been a
failure in France, and are about to be dis
carled there, as they have already been
partially in Germany. The great maritime
nations of the continent are looking else
where for measures to promote their ship
ping interests They are looking to con-
struction and navigation bounties and mail
| subsidies as in France and Italy, or to
mail subsidies alone as in Germany. Sta
tistcs demonstrate that these methods are
producing good results. The system of
free ships, therefore, which Southern
and Western Democratic politicians re-
commend for our adoption, is not only OPP
posed to all our traditions and obnoxious
to patriotic sentiment but it is a system
which has failed in practice and is now
being repudiated by the chief commercial
nations of the Old World In the extreme
form in which this measure is now before
Congress it has not been asked for by a
single mercantile organization in the
United States, nor, so far as is KNOWN by
single individual, while it is strenuously
opposed by our active shipowners. As a