The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-01-09
OUR MERCHANT NAVY.
1t Should Be ''Restored," Says Cor
respondent Sheets.

1t Should Be 'sRestOred," Says Cor
respondent Sheets.
To The st. Paul Globe:
Just now the subject of building up q great
merchant navy is one of vital interest, and
the action of the Grain Growers association
at the recent session, indorsing ]. ]. Hills
bounty system. makes general discussion
OF this question matter Of Importance. But
1t Is to be regretted that no member Of the
association raised his voice in the interest
OF true Democratic principles, as applied to
our shipping industry.
In discussing our shipping interest 1t would
be more correct to speak of restoring our
merchant marine rather than building it up.
For at one time in our history We led the
world both in building and sailing ships
The American flag hoated ON every sea and
in every harbor of the world. The develop
ment OF American shipping began with the
first settlement of the colonies and grew not
only without protection to builders or boun-
ties to sailors, but in the fact of hostile leg
islation from the mother, country. After the
adoption of the constitution began the history
of our national merchant marine, and UP to
the year 1860 1t was source of pride to every
American. At that time nearly one-third of
the worlds shipping flew the Stars and
Stripes. and the tonnage of American vessels
ish empire. colonies included The tonnage
of the United States was in 1889 123, 900 tons,
registered Gin foreign trade) and 1900 tons.
enrolled Qn domestic trade) In 1860 the
figures We're 100000 registered and $4,000
enrolled. From the year 1861 our shipping
declined, Notwithstanding our enormous de-
velopment in other lines. In 1883 (the last
year of which 1 have the data by mel our
total tonnage was 1900 Of which only
~ MA
During the period Of decline In the Amerf-
can merchant navy that of the British em-
pire increased from 500, 900 tons In 1860 to
10, 500 600 tons in 1887.
In the matter of building ships cur growth
was the same. In 1897 the tonnage of Ameri-
can ships built was $1,000. This industry
grew steadily with the development Of the
whole country, and In 1855 the tonnage pro-
duced was 900 tons. This was the year
Of greatest production In American ship build
ing. and by 1887 it was only 10000 tons.
In contrast with this disastrous experience
of ours. England increased her ship building
from $4,000 tons in 1858 to 377, 900 tons In
1887.
Now, in the discussion of our shipping and
in proposing measures for restoring our mer-
chant navy, it Is pertinent to inquire the
causes Of the foregoing experience. Why did
the American nation In its youth lead the
world in its shipping on the high seas-build-
ing ships for our own trade and also to sell
to others, and doing one-third of the foreign
carrying trade of the world? And. further,
why Is 1t that during the greatest period of
our Industrial Development in other lines the
Stars and Stripes have been swept off the
ocean? If our laws have caused the decline
of our marine interests, then 1t would be
wise to abolish them and re-enact the laws
Jylai nh c11ir ,od ind
that is just what must be done if we are to
have shipping interest commensurate with
our development in other industrial lines.
Our present laws prohibit the purchase Of
foreign-built vessels and sailing them under
our flag. The American capitalist who wishes
to operate ships in foreign trade is re-
stricted to American ship yards. The Amer
lean ship builders must build from materials
purchased from protected iron producers.
Our protective laws add to the price of all
ship building materials used by American
ship builders. All stores used by shippers
must be bought in restricted market. 1t
is this so-called protective system, which
came in with the Republican party, that has
killed our shipping interests. and there can
M mo new IN middle ~ Ire can e th
ANNUAL plank in all Republican platforms
advocating legislation in the interest OF our
merchant marine long before they were ODD
enough to understand the meaning of the
terms used. Numerous subsidy acts have
been adopted and millions of dollars spent
in fostering our shipping, all to no effect.
subsidies for their shipping. but have invari-
ably failed. France and Italy tried this
american system, but their shipping, as
ours did, declined under It's malignant in
fuence. England. who repealed her restric-
tive measures about the time we adopted her
o.d-time, barbarous system. has steadily ad-
vanced to the proud position of the, mistress
of the high seas. The British merchant may.
buy his ships in the cheapest markets of the
world, and, furthermore, all British ports
are open to the worlds shipping on equal
American policy previous to the ascendancy
Of the Republican party. 1t Is the true
Democratic polcy-it Is simply freedom, and
freedom Is the true policy for all lines Of
industry.
The assertion is constantly made and gen.
orally believed that England has built up her
magnificent shipping by subsidy system
that American ships, in order to compete
with English ships must be treated with the
same generosity. But the British marine
has in no sense been the result of subsidy
system; England, It is true. pays out Large
amounts for mail service, but this expendi-
ture is for the good of the mail service only,
and the ocean steamship lines that receive
the money render full service for the same.
At one time England had part of her ocean
mail service performed by German vessels,
simply because the latter underbid the. Brit
ish ships. Furthermore, while the amount OF
mail increased the sums paid for the mail
50, 900 600 in 1888. showing that the letting of
the mail contracts was by bids and awarded
to the lowest responsible offer. But the most
conclusive proof that English shipping is not
subsidized is in the fact that the total num-
Der Of British vessels engaged in foreign
mail service was 1886 in 1889. representing
tonnage of $4,000 tons, while the total NUM-
Der Of ships in foreign, trade ", was 6,625, rep
resenting tonnage of 900 tons. Thus
more than so per cent of the British ships
receive no government aid in the way of
mail contracts. 1t is true that few steam
ers, numbering only ten In the year 1859,
were paid direct bounty by the English
government, on condition that they might be
called on for service in the navy in case of
war, but of the vast number Of British ships
carrying tye Union Jack In every sea more
than Is per cent are without government aid
of any description. and are the simple, logical
effect of laws which afford a free field and no
favors.
However, 1t is we'll that an American boun-
ty system be promptly adopted, because. on
the principle that fools learn in no
school except that of experience it Is not
likely that OUR people can ever learn the
folly of trying to build UP our marine by
subsidies except by costly experience
j. H. Sheets.
RroWervfUe Mimi IAN T. 1899