The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1900-06-23

FOREIGN SHIP REGISTRY.
Opposition to the Admission of Pur.
chased Boats 10 American
Lists.

department bought foreign steamships
aggregating 70,5O9 gross tons register.
The navy department in the same emer-
gency bought foreign steamships ag-
gregating 55.O45 gross register tons.
The navy department, in addition, pur-
chased foreign yachts aggregating
1904 tons gross register. This makes
total Of 126,S1S tons of foreign yes
sells purchased by the two departments
of our government named for auxiliary
war purposes. The United States was
eager to buy the very best vessels that
could be obtained. Money was no OBJ
ject, but the very best ships was
the great objective. More than that,
the United States had ready cash with
which to promptly and fully pay for
its purchases. The question OF price
did not cut much figure-the price was
conceded, il the ship was anything near
to what was wanted. Even as 1T
was, it was with the utmost difficulty
that the United States secured the 1885,
s1s tons of foreign steamships de-
scribed.
1t has been suggested that these ves-
sells having been purchased by the
United States, being ineligible to
American registry under our naviga-
ton laws, should be admitted to regis
try. Congress has, so far, failed TO act
on this recommendation. Traditional
ly. and on the highest grounds, the peor
pie Of the United States have donsist-
emily opposed the admission of foreign
built ships to American registry.
Never was that opposition so manifest
as at present
An overzealous opponent of the
American ship subsidy bill. in an open
letter published on May II in the Con-
| gressional Record, advocates the adj
mission of 100000 tons of foreign
ships to American registry, as one way
by which to build up an American mer-
! chant marine. One might suppose that
| the American purchasers stood ready
with the money in their hands, and the
| foreign owners of the ships stood ready
| to turn them over to them. But we
| have seen what success Uncle Sam had
in purchasing only 10000 tons of for
eign ships. Referring to the latter,
| this overzealous opponent of the Amer
lean shipping bill says in the letter in
question:
"When the government needed ships
| it procured them abroad at once, and
! these makeshift vessels are poor sop
| to offer TO our people for registry for
denial of privilege to buy the latest
type"
So. after all. the best that our gov
eminent could do. according to this OPP
ponent Of American shipping. was 20
secure makeshift vessels! And yet, in
spite of our governments urgent need,
in spite of its ready cash, in spite of its
willingness to pay any amount, only
asking for the best obtainable, make,
shift vessels" that are ga poor sop for
American registry" were the best pro-
durable.
It is manifest that If American citi-
zens should seek to buld'up an Amer
lean merchant marine by the purchase
of "makeshift vessels" under foreign
flags. they would be deluded, and our
marine would continue to dwindle.
! This opponent of the American ship
ping bill has produced the very best ar
gument yet why that bill should pass.
1t is clear that the American people
must not rely on foreign ships-"make-
shift vessels"-with which TO build up
their merchant marine. They must,
rather, rely upon American shipyards
to produce for them ships of the latest
type, with which to compete with the
"makeshift vessels" which should be
left in the hands of the foreign owners.
More argument of the kind advanced
in behalf of the purchase of foreign
built vessels will only help to bury still
deeper that much discredited and
abandoned proposition in the interest
of British shipbuilders.