The Republican journal. [volume] (Belfast, Me.) 1829-current, 1910-10-27
How We Have Lost Our Ships,
And How We Can Regain Them.
BY FIELDS $. pEsDLErok.
New York Amerlcan.l

| NEW York Americana
Protection on land and free trade Or
the seas is the real explanation for the
decline of the American merchant ma
rine. Our high tariff had two important
effects on this country. 1t has increased
the cost of commodities by keeping out
foreign competition, and it has brought
about the payment of higher wages t.
labor.
The shipbuilder in America has no,
only to nav more for the materials Of
which he is going to build his ship. but
he has to paw higher wages for his labor
than any other nation. 1t costs more tt
build an American ship than to build
ship of any other nation.
But that is equally true, it will be said,
of every other article that is manufact'
ured in this country, the cost of materi.
ais and labor being greater than it is in
other countries. The answer to this is
apparent All our industries which re-
auire it are protected by the tariff, with
the single exception of shipping.
We don't allow a single ton OF iron OF
steel to come into this country without
paying a duty. But the product of iron
and steel in the shape OF foreign mer-
chant ships is permitted without any tax
or duty to enter our ports and capture
our carrying trade from under our very
noses. That is what | refer to as free
trade on the seas.
do not attack the principles of pro-
lection which have brought about higher
prices and higher wages here, but l de-
| plore the fact that the same principle
has not been extended to that most valu-
able of all national Institutions the
| hot
tent policy is the direct cause of the hui
initiating position in which the United
States finds itself today with respect to
its merchant marine is confirmed by our
own history.
When this country was in its infancy,
as far back as 1889, the first Congress
passed an act providing that tariff duties
should be 10 per cent lower upon goods
imported in ships built and owned by
Americans. In that way the principle
of protection was extended to the ship
ping industry, and the consequence was
it fiourished. Between 1889 and 1876
American shipbuilding and commerce
grew by leaps and bounds, the merchant
shipping engaged in the foreign trade in
creasing from 1923, 1893 tons to SIG, 1888
tons within the seven years. This is a
practical illustration of the discriminate
ing duties principle, as Lewis Nixon calls
it, or the preferential duty plan, as l
prefer to call it. In 1880 80 per cent of
our foreign trade was carried in Ameri-
can vessels and 10 per cent in foreign
vessels. To-day the figures are just re-
versed.
Although in 1915 Congress modified its
protective policy in favor of shipping by
removing the discriminating duties as
far as British ships were concerned, and
gradually, nation by nation, extended its
generous policy TO the ships of all ma
tons, we were nevertheless able to
maintain our stronghold on the carrying
trade while ships continued to be made
of wood, because Of the endless re-
sources of our forests and the skill of
our woodsmen. We were able not only
to build our own ships, but to build ships
for other countries. But the time of
iron vessels eventually arrived, and Eng
land, with her well-developed iron indus
tries, had tremendous advantage over
us.
To overcome this advantage, other ma
lions started giving subsidies to their
merchant ships, and England adopted
the same policy and maintained her SUI
premacy of the seas. But we coulc
have overcome all these handicaps hac
we afforded our ships the same sort Of
protection as we granted our other indus.
tries which suffered through foreign
competition. This we have uniformly
neglected to do ever since the repeal Of
the wise acts of our early days as a ma.
ton.
That is the main reason why American
capital is not attracted by the shipping
industry. The fact that our navigation
laws have fixed food schedule ane
wage scale for the sailors which are
higher than those of any other nation
and consequently increase operating ex
penses so that it is impossible for US tt
compete with foreign ships, is another
factor.
We do not wish to reduce the wages Of
the American sailor, nor do we wish t.
reduce the standard of his food supplies
and quarters. 1t is not necessary to dc
so. We could overcome the handicap
which these items entail by the system
of discriminating duties. We could like
wise accomplish the same effect by E
generous policy of subsidies or subven
tons, only this latter plan has met with
great opposition, because the average
man looks upon it as gift of public
moneys to private enterprises. How
ever this may be, no such criticism car
be made of the discriminating or prefer
entail duty proposition.
j. l would confine it to only what i!
known as the indirect trade. The direc
trade is where an English ship bring
goods direct from England. In sucl
cases would allow merchandise to com,
in without any additional duty. But il
the indirect trade, as where an Englisl
ship brings goods from a German port,
French port or an Italian port, l woult
impose an additional duty, so that for
eign shippers would find it profitable t.
ship their goods in American owned yes
sells. A demand being thus created TO
American bottoms, capital would find tn
shipping industry attractive, and the re
Mobilization of the merchant marin
would soon follow.
am now preparing bill covering thi
plan. The additional duty on goods car
ried in foreign vessels would be raise,
gradually, an increase Of per cent be
ing imposed for the first year, of 2 pc
cent for the second year, and so on unit
a total Of per cent was reached. A pc
Rod of five years would by that tim
have elapsed, and would have given CAPT
tai time to look into the proposition am
to build enough new ships to avail itsel
of the new conditions.
Under present conditions, it is true, i
is imDOSSible to ODerate shin under th