The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1898-07-19
Big Navles. Colonies and Commerce

An argument often put forward in
defense of the new policy of a big
navy and foreign territorial acqu1Sl-
ton is that we need to prvide for an
expansion of our foreign trade. The
possession of many Warships and a
wide foreign empire will give US, 1t is
imagined, increased commerce. The
idea is, however, very ABSURD, ana
consideration of a few facts Will make
it clear that a country may have a
big navy and a big colonial empire
without acquiring thereby a large for
eign commerce or a large merchant
| marine. France, for example, has a
navy and a colonial empire second
only only to those of England, yet the
foreign of France is lnfe-
riOr to tina of the United States n
also to that of Germany, neither Of
which countries has a large navy.
Frances hundreds of Warships do not
| promote the growth of her commerce
nor of her shipping. Her aggregate
tonnage in 1867 was but 1856, 184
tons, as against 1927, 445 tons of Ger
| man and 2.120,174 tons of American
shipping. Ever little Norway, with
out navy or colOnies, had 1870, 1856 tons
of shipping, as against the l~,1S6,1o4
tons of France proving that a nation
without warships or jingoes may pos
sess a vigorous merchant marine.
~Germany's foreign trade has increas-
ed greatly in recent years, but her
navy has been comparatively small
and had nothing to do with the in
| crease. Her colonies. like those of
France, are Improbable and bring no
appreciate growth of foreign trade.
| The United States itself affords proof
that a large foreign may
| exist without either a large navy or a
| large merchant marine. Our foreign
commerce last year aggregated $1,000
| 600, as against smaller for
France, Russia. and Ita ~ly-countries
which equal or urpaS is in size of
| navy. Russia, which ral.ks high as a
military M naval power and is next
to England in the area of her empire,
had in 1898 but 1888, 500, 900 of foreign
commerce, while that Of petty Hol-
land, without army, navy or empire of
! any consequence, was 1858, OOO, 600.
The foreign possessions of all
tries, except England, are, in fact, an
| expensive burden, and not by any
means profitable. The failure of the
colonies of France. Germany and
Spain to pay expenses is notorious. 1t
was SPANS effort to make her col
onies a source of profit to her that has
caused her to lose them. To use COL
onies as exclusive markets for the
benefit of home manufacturers is ty-
rany. That policy is a ruinous one
"IAN ms II III TX,
abandoned it a hundred years ago.
The United States cannot wisely re-
vive that obsolete plan with safety in
any colonies she may acquire. a COL
| Ony must be taxed for its own main
| ~tenance, not for the enrichment of the
/ sovereign power.
England's prosperity is pointed to
as proof that big navy and big colon
ial empire produce a large volume of
in 1S95-96 was worth s3.413, 800, 900, or
| more than that of France and Ger
| many put together. Her shipping in
| 1867 aggregated 13,513. 2o2 tons. or
| more than of all the rest of the world
| put together. Her empire embraced
over II .000, 900 square miles, with a
| population of about $50, 600. 900. At the
| sametime her navy was equal to that
| of any of her strongest rivals put to-
| gether. But her wealth and COM
merce are the growth Of centuries OF
enterprise and are toStered by a pol
icy of free trade. which her people TO
serve the world cheac ,y. Low prices
for goods, for ships. for services-that
is the secret of Engla1d's pre-emi-
hence in foreign commerce. Her navy
protects a already existing;
1t does no create il. 1t is large be-
| cause it has to defend and
| colonies spread al over the globe.
| England obtains no revenue from any
| of her possessions. The preference of
her colonies to rad with her-that is
the only direct fruit they bear her.