The sun., 1903-11-14
REVIVAL OF OUR SHIPPING.
Prof. TrowbrIdge of Columbia suggests
Certain LegisIat tiOn.

To THE EDITOR OF The SUN-Sir: In an
article In the November number Of Marine
Engineering some Of the men most interested
In q revival Of our merchant marine have
given their opinions concerning methods OF
revival The reader is at once struck with
the unanirnity Of opinion expressed by the
shipbuilders, that some form Of subsidy would
be tho best incentive to American commerce.,
From the standpoint Of the shipbuilder. this
seems to BE- true. for he would receive direct
baneft by getting high prices for his work but.
as far as producing good results is concerned.
subsidy such as was proposed at the last
Congress Is worrs than nothing. That sub
sdy was on o basis Of cargo carried per ton
per mile, and by 1t the large swift vessel
would earn an enormously greater amount
than the moderate sized. slow steamer suita-
BILE for Transporting freight very cheaply.
The consequence would be that enough large
ships would be built to use up the subsidy so
closely that only fair profit would be made
on tho ca pital invested, and then shipbuilding
would become as staynant as 1t is to-day.
The kind Of legislation needed Is not any
thing that will distribute certain amount OF
money each year 70 few individuals fortu-
nate enough to have money to invest In large
ships. but rather. we need legislation that will
be benefit to the people Of the country and
will enooura GO the use OF American built
ships In every case where goods or passengers
are carried to or from this country. This
means that 1t must either be possible to oper-
ate our ships cheaper than those of forei gn
nation can be operated. or the American ship
must be- given some advantage that cannot
be- enjoyed by the foreign vessel great enough
to make 1t desirable to use the American ship.
Suoh legislation would create a demand for
American built ships and promote competi-
ton. 80 that we could have a natural healthy
growth Of shipbuildlng In this country.
4. bat L..n hi
built In this country would be to put an export
duty on coal and have this duty apply TO all
GOAL supplied to any foreign built ship. and
not to coal supplied to American built ships
registered here. This would be source Of
revenue to the Government snd not an eX-
pense. as a subsidy would be. Such duty
would not be unjust. as 1t would merely be
case OF charging the foreigner a certain
amount more than our own people were
charged for some Of the mineral produced
here. This duty would be especially bene-
ficial TO the large. swift steamer wt.ch uses
such great quantities Of coal. but not at the
expense OF the freight ship. as the latter would
eign built vessel OF its own class.
An export dutyo coal would have amount
become exporters OF coal. and the nation
should receive some return for allowing such
valuable material 10 be taken o9} OF the coun-
coal in England each year, and it seems TO be
only question of a short time before the
United States vii, y, ss be xhe the greatest coal e1
An export duty should also be placed on oil.
This is another, very valuable mineral. ynst
the nation receives nothing. ,As oil can be
used for fuel IN place OF coal It would be
Gy sn SSoa p Rs duty on " TO tho
es to az IS per per cent hs er than feT Similar snip
the 't type Of vessel Why this is 50 g usually
s5Dsa 5y hs 4sess sosd s9;s s s0 S db a
iaeor e Ss Veil W paid but It Is not better paid in
mo1 ensoR San sha In hs IT aSon
namely. bridge building ard locomotive
In any large shipyard the orsanizat is
naturally separated into the two divisions
Of hull department and engine department:
Ths Era 3 bs the h bEPs sunF i snosIy
that OF ., locomotive works. OF course there
bridge building. such as bending the frames
and the great amount OF warped surface on
P e hi whss hsrs the SG spe aIi
in the engines and auxianes used on ship
from those on locomotye, but In the main
Il has been shown that American bridge
builders and AnsrGaRr g. III i9'c9hm1s Vs s,rnasn manu-
Being the case. what is the reason the Amer:
can shipbui.der. who uses tho same kind Of
materials and employs the same kind Of labor,
cannot undersen his fore Ign competitor2 !,
question. and i is that the American shipyard
10 not operated as economically as either the
hr1dse or locomotive shop, because II 10 not
as well orsanIsedM La and condTcted i. The prin.
or efrort, On the part Of the men at The head
OF the shipysrds, but because the effort ex-
erted has been to cheaper the product rather
than to lessen the cost Of producing u. In
almost any Of our American shipyards the
expense Of the of1oe and drauehtlns rooms
could be easily reduced to one -hslf what II
is at present. II the shops and yard were
looked after more carefully. and a proper
system OF pIscework introduced II 10 safe
to say that almost as large a reduction could
t 10 because Of their ssticlent orsanlIstion
do wors 40 cheapiy, and not alto sether be-
cause Of the low wa ges they pay.
Let ngrass give the American built ship
enough advantage to mpensate for the
due to our shippinR laws, and the merchant
marine OF tho United States will take care
Of itself. AAAsA TRowBRIDoE.