Year: 1867




The New York Times, which occasionally
looks into shipbuilding ''in a friendly way,"
as Silas Wegg was accustomed to .drop into
poetry" has looked over the proceedings of
the convention of shipowners and shpbuild-
ers at Bath the other day. and is satisfied
that there is some ground for complaint in
the present condition of our shipyards and the
decline of our carrying trade. The Times
goes even farther, and comedies that ''the
principles embodied in the particular meas
ures of relief suggested by the Bath Conven-
ton, are sound" We are very glad the Times
thinks SO, but we are rather grieved to be
told in the same breath shat the advocacy of
them is in this instance weakened by the de-
sire to separate shipping from al! other inter
ests and to claim for it special consideration"
We had supposed that the business of ship
owners and shipbuilders' convention was
simply to set forth clearly and Enthusiastically
the disabilities and injuries inflicted upon
their special industry by the present system
OF taxation. We had Supposed that the wool
en and cotton manufacturers were ready and
willing to present their special grievances, as
well as the woolgrowers, the whiskey trade,
and the iron miners. We had regarded it as
the duty of these several interests to repre-
sent their several needs and desires to Cor
gress, and the duty of Congress to shape
general system of legislation to suit their
common needs. The Times says very truly
that cumulative saxation is not peculiar to
the case OF shipbuilding; that all raw mate
rails used in industrial pursuits should be ai-
mitted free of duty; and that the remedy for
double taxation on materials imported from
the Provinces is return to reciprocity. This
is al very true, and so is the Newtonian doc
trine of gravtation, but the Bath convention
had nothing to do with either. The business
of the convention was special, to exhibit the
working of the revenue system as it affects
shipbuilding. So far as the system affects
other Industries in the same way, the move
ment of the shipbuilders is really co operative,
though of course they ask simply relief for
themselves.


In some respects, however, the carrying
trade is entitled to special consideration. Our
woolen and cotton manufactures supply only
the home market. They are protected to
certain extent against foreign competition.
The taxes on their raw materials can be and
ere charged to the consumers. Our shipown
ers have no such advantage. Their rates of
freight are determined for them by the ex-
penses OF foreign owners. If British owners
are able to live by lower freights than Ameri-
can vessels can afford to take, then wherever
the shipping of the two nations comes into
competition the Americans go to the wall Al
ready our shipping mas fallen off one half;
If this state of things continues we shall soon
have nothing left but our coasting trade.


The Times proposes to meet this difficulty
by removing the restrictions ON the registry of
foreign-built vessels, so that American own
ers may tuy in the cheapest market. This is
plausible, but falacious. The result would
be that our shipowners would buy the prod
uct of the untaxed shipyards of the Prov
inces, while our own yards would be de-
selted. The taxes on shipbuilding would be
sacrificed by the government, and the indus
try itself would be sacrificed with them. But
if the taxes are to be remitted, why not keep
the industry? Why not give our own ship
builders the chance to build their vessels un
taxed? Give them that opportunity, and
they will neither need nor ask any protection
against foreign builders. a 1ge ~