Our merchant marine : its condition as shown

<=o •LD • m Ml i . 1 WOHA ITS CONDITION AS SHOWN BY THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE ADMIRAL OF THE NAVY ISSUED BY TUB AMERICAN SHIPPING AND INDUSTRIAL LEAGUE, FOREIGN CARRYING TRADE. FROM THE REPORT OP HON. O. 8. FAIRCHILD SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. The following table shows the values of the imports and exports of the United States car- ried respectively in American vessels and in foreign vessels during each fiscal year, from 1856 to 1887, inclusive, with the percentage car- ried in American vessels. Year ending Jane 30. In American vessels. In foreign vessels. Total. Percentage carried in American vessels. 1856 $482,268,274 510831,027 447,191,304 465,741 381 507,217,757 881,516,788 217,695,418 241,872,471 184,061.486 167,402,87* 825,711,801 297.834,904 297,981,673 289,956,772 852,969,401 853,664,172 845,331,101 846,806.592 850,451,994 814,257,792 811,076,171 816,660.281 813,050,906 272,015.692 2.«i8.340,577 250,586,420 227,229,745 240,420,500 233,699,035 194,865,743 197,849,503 194,856,746 $159.336,576 213,510,796 160,066,267 229,816.211 255,040;793 203,478,278 218,015,296 34^.056,031 485,793 518 437,010,124 685 226 631 581,330,403 550,546,074 586,492012 638.927.488 755,822;576 839,346 362 966,723,651 939,206,106 884,788,517 813 354,987 859,920,536 870,901,189 91 1,269,232 1,224.265,434 LiM0,008,98H 1.212,978,769 l.-J.-s.:..',;;,-! 1,127,1 1,079 518,566 1,073,911,113 1,165,194,608 $641,604,850 723,8TX),823 607,257'.571 695,557,592 762,288,550 584 995,066 •4.T>. 710,714 584,928,502 (5(59,855 034 604.412,996 1,0109^8,552 8T9.165,:i07 848,527 617 876,448,784 991,896,889 1,132.472,258 1,212,328 233 1,340,899,221 1,312,680,040 1,219,434,544 1.142,904,312 1,194,045 6->7 1,210,519,399 1,202,708.(;09 1,503,593.404 1,515,041,974 1,475,181,841 1.547,020,816 l.i"s.2ll.3UJ 1,319.717,084 1,314,960,966 1,408,502,979 75.2 70.5 73.7 66.9 66.5 65.2 50.0 41.4 275 27.7 322 33.9 851 83.1 35.6 31.2 28.5 258 26.7 258 331 265 25.9 22.6 17.18 16.22 1540 15.64 1660 14.76 16.01 13.80 1857 1858 1859 I860 1861 1862 1863 .. 1864 1865 MM 1867 1868 . .. i«;9 1870 1871.... 1872... 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1878 1879 HBO 1881 1883 1889 1884 U8B MM 1887. . . . Thus it will be seen that our foreign com- merce, carried in vessels of the United States, measured by its value, has steadily declined t'rom 75 per cent, in 1856 to less than 14 per o.ent. in 1887. Even of this small percentage IPSS* than one-half was carried in steam vessels bearing our THE NAVAL RESERVE. FROM THE REPORT OF HON. W. C. WHITNEY, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. The policy of this country has always been opposed to the establishment of large perma- nent naval and military organizations. This policy, for a country with a great coast line and important commercial interests, almost necessi- tates the maintenance of auxiliaries in the way of naval and military reserves. The land forces have such auxiliaries in the shape of State militia or national guards. These constitute large bodies of troops, well organized and equipped, thoroughly well trained and disci- plined, ready to take the field and to become a part of a regular military estabishment when required. A public feeling seems to exist for the crea- tion of a naval reserve. Committees of the Chambers of Commerce of New York and San Francisco have passed resolutions urging the organization of such a force as a means for providing tor the coast defence and meeting the increased demands of the regular naval establishment for men and vessels upon the outbreak of war. Inquiries have also been made at the Department from cities of the Great Lakes, and meetings have been held in cities of the South indorsing the formation of such a national organization. The Department has informed itself fully of the different systems of organization for coast defence and naval reserves at present in force in foreign countries, and is prepared to formu- late a general plan for a similar organization to meet the requirements and conditions of our own institutions. It should resemble in organi- zation that of the militia or national guard, rest upon the foundation of local interest, contem- plate the employment and rapid mobilization of steamers enrolled on an auxiliary navy list, and be calculated to produce the best results upon a comparatively small national expenditure. I ask for this question the earnest consideration of Congress. *- » It may not be out of place as a branch of this subject to call attention to one of the incidental consequences of the policy pursued by other countries in this matter of a naval reserve. In time of war troop ships or transports are in great demand. Several European Governments make an annual contribution, based on tonnage, to companies constructing new vessels. The consideration to the Government is a counter agreement, permitting the Government to take such a vessel for a transport in time of war upon terms named in the agreement. The Government officials are also consulted as to her mode of construction, and she goes on to the naval reserve list. These payments are inci- dentally in the nature of a subsidy to the ship owner and this, with the liberal payments for Government transportation of mails, etc., keeps a large fleet of merchantmen afloat as a reserve ready for a time of war. Without ships and trained seamen there can be no naval reserve. A notable illustration of the generosity and courage with which England pushes her ship- ping interest is seen in the manner in which she is at this moment dealing with the trade of the North Pacific. It has been thus far principally under the American flag and contributory to San Francisco and the United States. The British Government and Canada together are proposing for the establishment of a line of first-class steamers from Vancouver to Japan. The subsidy is likely to be $300,000 annually— £45,000 from England and £15,000 from Canada. There will also be contributed from the naval reserve fund probably $5 per ton annually for each ship con- structed for the route, which will increase the sum by probably $125,000. Under such com- petition it is quite easy to conjecture what will become of the American flag and our resources in the way of a naval reserve in the North Pacific. OUR MERCHANT MARINE. FROM TI1E REPORT OF ADMIRAL D. D, PORTER, UNITED STATES NAVY. I. At present there is a great desire in this coun- try to share with others in the foreign trade, and it is strongly urged that the Government should give its aid in resurrecting our ocean commercial marine, since it is very evident that our shipping cannot be revived without the same assistance that was given the ocean steam lines of Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany and latterly, Spain. Heretofore, when it has been proposed in Congress to grant Government aid to assist in putting afloat lines of ocean steamers, questions of free trade and tariff have been in- troduced to kill the measure, and foreigners who do not wish any competition with their lucrative business, and have plenty of money with which to operate, are always ready to show how much more advantageous it is to Americans that they should have the carrying trade. For- eigners generally argue that they receive no " subsidies," but who knows but themselves what assistance they receive from their Govern- ments? They carry the United States mails at a low figure to keep American vessels from being built to carry them. It costs them little or nothing to carry the mails and they can well spare the small amount of room required. That lines of American steamers should carry the mails is 9 doubtless the desire of every American, and the feeling on this subject is increasing all over the country. At the same time every merchant knows that a line of American ocean steamships cannot be maintained without subsidies from the Government. In regard to this a misappre- hension prevails among the uninformed, who consider it a proposition for the Government to " foster monopolies." Now, there is a great difference between grant- ing a subsidy and fostering a monopoly. In the latter case, the sole power and permission to deal with a certain place or in a certain article is granted, while the case of a subsidy is simply an assistance to an enterprise from which a return is expected, and such subsidies as I have advo- cated should not be confined to any particular line of steamers, but should be given to all ship- owners who are willing to make their ships con- form, in a prescribed degree, to the requirements of a vessel of war, said ships to be constructed under the supervision of the Secretary of the Navy. This is what other commercial nations do, and it is only justice to the Navy and the coun- try that we should pursue a course that will double or treble the number of our cruisers in time of war. One way of granting a subsidy would be to enact the "tonnage bill" several times brought before Congress. This bill pro- vides that 30 cents per ton shall be allowed every vessel propelled by sail or steam and built and owned in the United States and trad- ing with foreign countries, for every thousand miles sailed or steamed, the contract to hold good for a term of years, with such restrictions regarding the vessels as the Government shajl impose. 10 This would be the simplest plan for resurrect- ing the mercantile marine and the Government would have at its disposal a class of vessels lit- tle inferior to the regular cruising ships of war. In fact, the chances are the steam merchant vessels would be superior in speed, which should be the chief desideratum with commerce de- stroyers. By a proper subsidy, such as I have indicated, many industries would be assisted, those of iron and steel, coal mining, shipyards, canvas, boat-building, hardware, glass-making, pottery, furniture, painters, engine-builders; in short, a hundred different branches of trade which combine to make a complete vessel, in- dustries that are now languishing for want of this very stimulus which they would enjoy but for the lack of forethought in those who should labor to advance every employment in which our citizens are engaged. It is not so much the building proper of American steamships that makes them cost more than vessels constructed abroad, as it is the expense of fitting them out; for there is not sufficient competition in this country to bring that kind of work down to the standard of foreign countries where labor is so much cheaper. Ships built in Great Britain cost ten per cent, less; but, when the better finish of American ships and the superiority of our iron is considered, the statements that it would be better for us to build ships on the Clyde or Mersey are seen to be fallacious. With all these facts staring our legislators in the face, they should not hesitate a moment between the proposition to abolish the shipping laws so that vessels could be built abroad for us by British mechanics, and that to foster the 11 industries of our own country and have our own ocean steamers constructed in the United States under the supervision of naval officers, so that the Government would have vessels of suitable character to perform the service required of them as commerce destroyers in time of war. This argument doubtless conflicts with the theories of the free-traders of Great Britain and the United States, who require that England shall do all our carrying trade and reap the profits; but, leaving sentimentality out of the question, we will get better ships "built in our own country, although the first cost may be rather more, and we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that the vessels can, if necessary, be used for naval purposes. This is what advo- cates for increasing our naval resources aim at in supporting the subsidy measure, for we see how little disposition there has been in this country to build up a navy adequate to its wants and dignity; but the officers of the navy hope to see some plan adopted without delay, by which, in the event of war, they can afford the necessary protection to our own commerce and inflict damage on that of the enemy. There is a growing feeling in the country with regard to the neglect which has been manifested in building up our ocean mercantile marine, and it is to be hoped that this feeling will spread until the thousands of unemployed workmen have a chance to earn good wages and the American ocean steamers have a fair share of the $150,000,000 annually paid to foreigners for carrying our goods. By the course we have pursued in this coun- try we have actually given protection to foreign steamships at the expense of our own. The 12 wharves of New York are decorated with foreign flags, while hardly an American ensign can be seen floating above a steamer suitable for conversion into a vessel of war. This ia free trade with a vengeance, all on one side and for the benefit of other nations. We ship our goods in foreign bottoms and foreigners get the lion's share of the profits. No American steam- ships are employed in foreign trade, because subsidized ships can drive them off and carry freight cheaper. It may be denied that these foreign lines are subsidized, but we know they started on a sub- sidy, which their Government wisely allowed them, and with that aid and the opposition our uhip owners met with in this country, owing to a want of liberality on the part of Congress, European steam lines can increase and multiply without opposition from the United States. It does not appear to have occurred to our people how this liberality of foreign nations will react against us some day. These lines of foreign steamships have all the ocean traffic in their hands. They have a perfect right to it, no doubt, as long as they find no one to dispute it. New York, to all appearances, is a foreign port, and owes much of her prosperity to the great ships which steam in and out of the harbor almost as often as the trains run up and down the elevated railroad. Many of these ocean steamers are grand struc- tures of great speed and strength, and well cal- culated for commerce destroyers. They could outstrip any cruisers we now have afloat, what- ever we may do in the future. Here is a great fleet of steamships built with all the skill of British artisans that could in ten days' time be 13 metamorphosed into vessels of war, armed with heavy guns, ready to blockade our ports and sweep what commerce we have left from the sea, or to encounter our ships in battle. In the ordinary course of events this is not likely to happen, for the interests of Great Britain and the United States are too closely interwoven to make a conflict of arms between them probable, but war has occurred before and may occur again, and I wish particularly to draw attention to a naval power right in our midst, built up and fostered by this country and ready to be used against us. The protection that has been given these foreign lines consists in the repudia- tion by our legislators of the claims of our own ship owners and failing to grant them assistance to enable them to compete with other nations I append the names of a few of these great British ships to show what an auxiliary Navy might at this moment have been ours had we taken time by the forelock and devoted our at- tention to the building up of our own mercantile marine instead of that of foreigners. The list here given includes only a portion of the vessels that can be converted into ships of war, but the fleet would be a powerful one if we could con- trol it. Name of Ship. Tons. Name of Ship. Tons. AurAnia 7269 Arizona 5147 Bolivia 4050 British Queen :iv>x Britannic 5004 City of Richmond . . . 4623 City of Montreal 4489 City of Chicago 5202 City of Komc 8144 Celtic 3867 Devonia 4270 Denmark :57;M England is:is Etruria 7718 Euvpt .. 4070 5495 Helvetia 458S Holland :jskS Servia 7392 state of Nebiaska . 8! ISO Umbria 7718 Wisconsin 8700 Wyoming 8238 14 These facts may be deemed suggestive, and when I mention that the Etruria, one of the above named ships, lately made 496 knots in twenty-four consecutive hours, or over twenty- knots an hour, the importance of building simi- lar vessels for our mercantile marine may be estimated. No matter how great a fleet of war vessels a nation may possess, a strong commer- cial marine is a great addition to it, a matter "^hich is perfectly understood in Europe' Whenever we have been engaged in war our mercantile marine has very greatly contributed to our success. The vessels I have mentioned in the foregoing list form but a small portion of the fleet of clippers which seem at present to have the exclusive right to transport American merchandise across the ocean, and the fact that not a single line of American steamers is em- ployed in transporting material to Europe, is a serious reflection on the enterprise of our citi- zens and an evidence of neglect on the part of Congress. II. As people begin to examine more closely into the subject, the cry of "monopoly" has less weight. Shipping leagues are springing up in all parts of the United States, and the potent arguments advanced at their meetings are sweeping away -the clouds of prejudice and showing the public the true state of affairs. The word "subsidy," so long a bugbear to our legislators, has begun to lose some of its terrors, and they see in the term "subvention" (a Government aid 01 bounty) or "postal appropri- 15 ation" no signs of monopoly in England, while at present we are practically insuring a monop- oly in this country to foreign steamship lines. There is no doubt that the new view of this matter which is taking possession of the Ameri- can mind has brightened the prospects of our mercantile marine, and it is to be hoped that • the many gloomy years in which our commerce has been at a low ebb may be succeeded by a period of wise legislation in which only a national feeling will prevail. I look for this as hopefully as I do for generous appropriations for the Navy when Congress again assembles. A closer examination of this subject than has heretofore been given it by the majority of our statesmen will show the loss this country has sustained by a failure of Congress to act in the premises. In the last eight years no less than one billion two hundred millions of dollars have been paid to foreign steamships, a sum almost equal to our national debt, and a burden that is only made tolerable owing to the immense re- sources of our country. We should be still further depleted but for the fact that we are sustained by the tariff on foreign merchandise and the protection of our manufactures, which prevents us from being undersold by foreigners and enables us to .give employment to our work- ing people, so that with all our drawbacks we grow rich. It would be hardly fair to accuse the Ameri- can people of a want of energy for failing to revive their ocean commerce when they are ex- hibiting so much of this quality in other direc- tions in developing the resources of the country. It seems to be a law of nature that decadence shall overtake every nation in the course of 16 time, but there is no instance on record of a nation giving up her position in the race for supremacy without a struggle to retrieve her- self. The decadence which has afflicted our ocean carrying trade is not for want of energy on the part of our people, or for the want of laws, but perhaps from a plethora of both which has hampered those who would have labored for its revival. This country was not formed by Government, but was built up by the independent efforts of a s -ries of individuals who have led the way in all great enterprises, and in the early days of the Republic never thought of asking Govern- ment aid; but during the great crisis in our history, when all the men and money of the country had to be employed to save it fror* destruction, the nations of Europe, while \se were hampered with difficulties at home, got so far ahead of us in the race for commercial su- premacy that they have ever since maintained the lead. The tendency in this country has not been to foster and encourage enterprise, but to limit and destroy it by laws specious enough in read- ing, but which are like the ashes of Dead Sea fruit when placed to the lips. To this system of legislating down hill and closing the door tightly year after year against the applications of those" who stand ready to enter into the busi- ness of reviving the commercial marine, is due the fact that our ocean carrying trade has passed into European hands, and that we are likely to be left with half a dozen machine shops to help us build a navy in times of war, or repair the small one on which, in ordinary times, we seem doomed to rely. 17 While our present illiberal policy is pursued we stand no chance of ever becoming anything more than a fifth-rate power upon the oceaa If we go on at the present rate our country will lose much of the strength which it owes to the cohesion of its individual atoms, and, like a soul less machine working on at random, it will meel the fate of many other nations that have flour- ished for a time and then fallen by their owe weight. Laying aside all arguments in favor of a mer- cantile marine, it is necessary for the assistance of the navy in time of war. We need addi tional and enlarged markets for our surplus pro- ducts, but foreign vessels with their subsidies are fast closing all the channels of trade against us, and our manufacture^ who would other- wise help to supply the world, are shut off by British rivals. British steamships have taken possession of all the routes of trade, fostered b^ the British Government and protected by British guns. This is creditable to the British Govern- ment, which looks out for the interests of Eng- lishmen all the world over, and it would seem as if the parent stock of the English-speaking race had more energy than their transatlantic offspring, for their steam mercantile marine not only monopolizes the foreign trade of the United States, but encircles the earth, for there is not a port in the world where there is a chance of finding a market for manufactured articles that a British feteamship does not penetrate. All that is left to us in the way of foreign commerce are the gleanings in the by-ways of trade, about which our great rivals give them- selves little concern, and a few second-rate ves- sels may now and then be encountered trying to 18 make a living under our flag, struggling along like the crows at Pensacola, which have to go to sea to get something to eat. That kind of com- merce is of little benefit to a nation. It is neces- sary to move on the great thoroughfares of the ocean to have an extensive trade, and Great Brit- ain, in recognition of this fact, pays her steam lines liberal subsidies. As the great highways of ocean trade are not frequented, by American steamships, inquiry jught to be made as to why this is the case and remedies adopted to cure the evil, especially as regards those routes where exports from the United States should naturally be carried in our own vessels, but in 1880, when this country had had ample opportunity to revive her commer- cial marine, we find the Americans transported goods to the value of $280,000,000, while for- eign vessels, mostly steamships, carried $1,309,- 466,596, the percentage being in 1856, 75, and in 1880, 17 per cent. This was a tremendous change for a country, and in regard to which a well known statistician observes: "At the be- ginning of the nineteenth century the commerce of the world seemed to be passing into Ameri- can hands, American shipping having increased fivefold in twenty years;" yet this once flourish- ing state of affairs seems to be forgotten by our legislators, which is the more remarkable con- sidering the highly intelligent character of our members of Congress generally. 5t was natural to suppose that when this fall- ing off of our commercial marine took place Congress would take advantage of the authority given by the Constitution to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and build it up again. The words of the Constitution are ample war- 19 rant to provide that our ships should receive a fair share of the ocean carrying trade, and there is just as much power to regulate our ocean commerce as to regulate commerce between the several States of the Union; but to prevent complications with foreign powers and to avoid laying imposts on foreign vessels that would conflict with treaties, we must give our citizens sufficient subsidies to enable them to build and run lines of steamships equal to any afloat. What would ten millions a year be to this country if given by Congress to help build up our commercial marine? It would more than return the equivalent in the shape of customs dues. It would more than pay if we could re- tain in the United States twenty out of the one hundred and fifty millions which are yearly carried out of the country for freights without benefits to our citizens. Why should not Am- erican commerce be allowed the same opportuni- ties that are afforded the other industries of the country, which have reached a development such as the most far-seeing never dreamed of? We are not tied down by foreign subsidized competitors on land, and therefore our progress has been marvelous, and so it would be upon the ocean if the bonds were once cut which con- fine our ship-builders. We will take, for instance, the French mer- chant steamships of over 8,000 tons, which of late years have become a feature in transatlan- tic travel. These vessels were encouraged by their Government as a set-off to the British steamships, which it was seen could be turned into vessels of war at short notice in case of hostilities with France, just as on the late occa- sion the Russians, when threatened with a war 20 with England, fitted up several large steamert in this country as commerce destroyers. France pays to these steamers $14,000 for every round trip between Havre and New York. What chance could an American line have against such a competition as that, receiving no assist- ance from Government and probably not being paid to carry the mails, which the foreigners would carry for nothing rather than an Ameri can ship should receive aid from the Govern ment? Even giving us "free ships and free materials" would not surmount the difficulty. Foreigners know this, and do not object tc our having fast ships built on the Mersey and the Clyde, as they are aware that we could not run them with any profit, handicapped as we would be by the many advantages possessed by the steamers of Europe. Foreign Governments must have lines of fast ships as offsets to each other in time of war, and are willing to pay for them, but even with Governmental aid the pro- fits of these vessels are not excessive, about six per cent, being the usual limit. Without the subsidy there would be no profit. If there be any lines which do not receive Government aid, it is because they received it until they were able to get along without further assistance. At one time the Cunard Line, with its magnificent fleet, netted 26 per cent. If this line should, for any cause, fail to pay a fair dividend, it will be for the interest of Great Britain to subsidiz it again. After all, the amount required to subsidize a line of steamers is not so very great. Suppose the United States started to subsidize forty ocean steamers the size of those that cross the Atlantic. Putting the vessels at 8,000 tons 21 each, and allowing 30 cents per ton for every 1,000 miloa traveled, the expense would be $2,400 per 1,000 miles for the 3,000 miles, or $7,200 for the voyage, return trip the same, or $14,400 for the round trip. Assuming eight round trips a year would give $115,200 annually for eacD1 steamer, or for the whole forty vessels $4,608,000 for a grand fleet of ships worthy of this Re- public, any two of which would be worth more in time of war than all the cruisers we have at present in the Navy. Yet $4,500,000 is no great amount for a nation to pay that has so many millions locked up in her Treasury doing no good, while every legiti- mate opportunity should be taken to enlarge the avenues of trade by land and sea in order that our country may fulfill the grand destiny marked out for it. Besides my interest as a citizen in the advance- ment of the country, I am specially concerned in behalf of the Navy, and am endeavoring to show forjhow small a sum an auxiliary naval force can be maintained. We spend more than the amount I have mentioned in public build- ings, and treble the sum in river and harbor im- provements, and I would inquire which of these three appropriations would be of the greatest benefit to the country, to say nothing of the more important part we would play in foreign countries? In time of war this great adjunct to our Navy would commit havoc on the enemy's commerce all over the world, while the heavy ships were defending our coasts. This is a grand picture to contemplate, but I fear a delu- sive one. Judging from the past, we are not equal to the occasion. III. Notwithstanding our former experience, we Beem to have learned nothing, and, as regards our commercial marine, are actually in a worse condition than we were in 1812. Speaking interestedly, I look at the loss to the Navy through the lack of energetic action on the part of our people and of unwise legislation on the part of Congress. I refer to the want of means to properly man a great fleet in time of war, which, under present circumstances, would be impossible, no matter how many naval ships we might build. A navy cannot be improvised or built at short notice, a fact which all history demonstrates, but it requires some strong in- centive to build it up, such as a powerful enemy near at hand, a commerce to protect, or injuries to avenge, and those nations that have dom- inated the world for so many years have attained their naval greatness only through a long course of training and learning how to turn to account every possible factor in the event of war. After a long series of hostilities between Great Britain and France, the conviction was forced upon the latter nation that the only way to compete with her rival was to build a navy of equal force. When this scheme was proposed in the French Assembly Mirabeau remarked : "The English war marine has grown to what it is, like the English oaks, of which the ships are built, through the slow progress of a thou- sand years. You cannot have a navy without sailors, and sailors are made through the dan- gers of the deep, from father to son, until their uome is on the wave. You cannot build up a lavy at once by a simple act of legislation." 23 These memorable words are as true to-day as they were when uttered. We must not expect to go on from year to year neglecting everything that tends to in- crease the naval strength of our country and then by some spasm of legislation create at once a navy or mercantile marine. In the case of a mercantile marine there will have to be over- come the opposing elements that have stood for years in the way of a great industry, and the first step should therefore be to appropriate money liberally, for money is the Archimedean lever that moves the world. No meagre aid should be doled out to repair the mischief cre- ated by unwise economy in the past, but such assistance should be given as will infuse life into every part of the Republic and give em- ployment to hundreds of thousands who to-day are without encouragement to ply their trades, a body of mechanics of whom the country may be proud, and upon whom the Government must rely in time of war. It is the interest of a commercial nation to have as great a balance of trade in its favor as possible. Great Britain, with this idea in view, is constantly increasing her tonnage, and en- deavors to have all her imports and exports carried in her own vessels, thus realizing nearly the entire selling price of her exports in foreign markets, and for her imports pays only the selling price in those same markets. If we had our own vessels, with which to carry on our trade, most of the freight charges would be retained or returned to this country, whereas $150,000,000 are annually retained or returned to England. With many people this is a mere matter of "sentiment." They do not care how 24 it is done so that they get their goods to a market, utterly ignoring the question of patriot- ism which should ever animate the hearts of Americans. But even in the breast of the most callous there must occasionally be a feeling of regret at the thought of our flag disappearing from the ocean, like a meteor that flashed for a moment over the surface of the waters and then disappeared forever. But yet there is hope. We are still the young giant among nations, whose muscles are tem- porarily relaxed, and the time may yet come when the American mind, grasping the situation of affairs, will exert its powers to place upon the ocean a fleet of steamers that will be the pride of the nation, and will inaugurate a new era more striking than any previous event in our commercial history. Many persons who cannot be moved by argu- ment or touched by an appeal to their patriotic sensibilities can be convinced by an array of statistics which will show the country is suffer- ing, and how we are handicapped by foreign nations. Not only our traditional commercial rival, Great Britain, but the other nations of Europe have taken the lead of us on the ocean. It is no longer said, " All the foreign commerce of the world is passing into American hands," but " All American ocean commerce is passing into the hands of foreigners." These are facts easily substantiated. In the first place, I propose to show that the great ocean steam marine of Great Britain owes its existence solely to subsidies, although many efforts have been made to prove the contrary. Parliamentary papers prove that the system is more than a century old, which shows that 25 British statesmen were wiser in days of old than we are at present, notwithstanding the example we have had before us. Great Britain started with the idea of building up her industries on a basis that would eclipse all other countries, and her ocean marine was so essential a part ot British greatness that from the first it received the most particular attention. The following taken from the reports of the " American Ship- ping and Industrial League," will show how much British commerce owes to subsidies (see 22d British Report of Commission of Revenue Inquiry), viz: The attention of the commissioners of " fees and gratuities," in the year 1788, was drawn to the expendi- ture, which hud been increased in the packet service during several years preceding their inquiry, an ex. penditure, according to their expression, " so enormous is almost to surpass credibility," the sum of $5,200.000, giving an annual expenditure (in a period of seventeen vears) the sum of $305,000. Here is official British investigation and evidence ol shipping subsidy by England, viz.: 1770 to 1788 $5,200,00(1 This continued until next examination by committee of finance, 1797, which shows that instead of being stopped it was increased, averaging up to 1810 $392,200 yearly, or in all, 1788 to 1810 Fhu committee U810) also increased the subsidy to $525,000 per year, and continued increasing until 1816. making a total of 4,725,00o After which it fell of for three years, 1817 to 1820, to 1,665,000 The spirit of subsidy again arose from 1821 to 1830, andpaid 5,855,000 Making In the first sixty years a payment of $25,063,000 It was at this time (1830) that the British commissioner of revenue made an especial investigation " for the pur- pose of inquiring into collection and management of public revenue," and then began the heavy subsidizing of steamships to over $500,000 per annum, as follows, viz.: 1830tol837 ., From general post-office, 183? to 1849 26,000,000 From mercantile marine fund, 1823 to 1848 37,500,000 From general post-office: 1850 to 1859 (over) 60,000,000 1860 to 1869 50,000,000 1870 to 1885 70,000,OOC Total assistance from British treasury to her shipping. $273,563,000 This does not include "amounts especially authorized"" by Parliament from time to lime, or added from " mer- cantile marine fund," or amounts made up by the Brit- ish system of " averaging and adjusting the accounts of her mail steamship companies," in order to enable them to declare an annual dividend of at least eight per cent. In order to anticipate the plea that such was the case, but that England does not now subsidize, the following is taken from official publications: 27 BRITISH MAIL SUBSIDY. [Report of the British Postmaster- General, 1885.] IS 88S SJ2 3 S8S » ^«> •0.25-* ^•* t- OiwS. . t- I ,§^l :8 ft a> a> a -3 I IIS ;1 I Bilji •a •g-S-a :§ il ii a ft ft OOO fig a : -5 * J :"5 I S-a S O«-3l^ (-3 28 Dstaited statement from "financial account " show? £774,626, or $3,870,000. By reference to Secretary Evarts' letter (Com. Rel., 1870, p. 26) the detailed " table of trade of West Indies" shows that only one-half of Great Britian's trade is with her own possessions, hence one-half of her subsidy can b } credited to the benefit of her colonies. * * * This settles the subsidy or subvention matter, or whatever name we may choose to call it, and should close the door against the schemes of foreign agents who are plotting to keep lines of American steamships from showing themselves on the ocean so that we may confine our ship- ping to the small vessels that creep along our coast. One would think that any American with proper pride of country would burn with indignation at the idea of our playing such an insignificant part — a game in which we may get the shell while our rivals secure the oyster. Consider for a moment the result of our sub- mitting so long to this iron rule which affects every industry in the United States. IV. The number of steam vessels in the world is given in the following table, which is taken from the Repertore General of the Bureau Veritas published during the present year, and includes all steamers of whatever class above 100 tons burden: Flag. Num- ber. Gross Tons. Flag. Num- ber. Gross Tons. British French 4,906 i68 629 879 856 167 158 218 275 329 105 174 62 101 57 82 28 27 23 12 6,545,645 745,66U 601,975 506,668 399,577 210,549 Z04,068 165,447 147,011 137,377 135,145 127,830 111,746 92,479 54.614 49,216 32,674 26,515 24.925 18,456 Argentine . 22 9 17 W 5 4 2 4 8 2 1 1 8 2 2 1 13.1*0 11,832 11,770 10,1*7 5,951 4,087 2.828 2,396 2,125 1,762 989 838 838 719 547 329 167 Chinese Turkish American Hawaiian ... Spanish .... Peinvian Dutch Haytu-n Zanzibar . . Italian Raw i an . .. Uruguay Norwegian Swedish Roumanian Tunisian Austrian Honduras Danish Persian Belgian Japanese Greek Venezuelan Costa Rican.... Siamese Ecuador Egyptian San Domingo . . Total.... Portuguese Chilian 8,547 10,403,958 Mexican This statement shows at a glance the sorry /^gure which our country cut in the enrollment, and it must be remembered that of the 379 steamers with which the United States are credited (Which includes tugs, river boats and old, obsolete craft of all sorts), but 101 are actually fitted to navigate the open ocean, and only 15 can be properly classed as ocean-sailing steamers. This last class are those running from New York to Aspinwall and Brazil, and from San Francisco to Panama, Australia, and China and Japan. All the others are coastwise vessels. I give below a list of American steamers which make up the 101 vessels referred to above. In compiling it I have rejected all vessels built previous to 1865, all wooden and paddle steam' ers and all below 1,000 tons. 30 LIST OF IRON AND STEEL STEAMERS OP OVER 3,000 TONS. When built. Name. Tons bui!t! Name. Tone 1883.. 1878. 1878. 1884. 1884. 1873. 1883. 1872. 1882.. Alameda 3,158 3,532 3,548 3,531 3,531 3101 3,158 3,104; 3,119 1875.. 1874. 1875. 1884. 1882. 1873. 1873. 1883. City of New York . . City of Peking 3,019 5,079 3,016 3,531 3,264 3,101 3,101 3,119 City of Para City of Rio de Janeiro El Dorado City of Sydney El Paso. . . Eureka Excelsior Illinois . Indiana Mariposa Ohio Pennsylvania San Pedro San Pablo Total, 17 steamers, 57,012 tons. Other na- tions have 484 steamers of over 3,000 tons. BETWEEN 2,000 AND 3,000 TONS. When built. Name. Tone When built. Name. - Tons 1873.. 1883.. 1881.. 1879.. 1882.. 1879.. 1877. . 1877.. 1870.. 1879.. 1880.. 1879.. 1873.. 1884.. 1875.. 1876.. 1875.. 1877.. 1878.. 1882.. 1882.. 1882.. 1881.. 1879.. 1884.. 1878.. -1881.. Acapulco Alamo ... 2,572 2943 2,014 2,983 2,676 2,480 2,093 2,029 2,017 2.765 2,722 1883.. 1876.. 1881.. 1884.. 1883.. 1880.. 1882.. 1877. . 1873.. 1873.. Advance ^,604 2,287 2,014 2,721 2.33S 2,87C 2,847 2,61i 8,90e 2,69! 2,934 2,603 2,351 2,943 3,000 2,689 2,735 2,100 2.099 2,566 2,075 2,076 2,417 2,426 2,157 2,660 2,131 2,562 Algiers Berkshire Chatham... Cienfuegoji .. Alleghany Chalmette Chattahoochee City of Alexandria.. City of Macon City of Savannah Clyde Colorado City of Afigusta City of Puebla. .... City of Washington . Colima . Colon Columbia . 1885.. 1883.. 1882.. 1883.. I860.. 1883.. 1880.. 1885.. 1876.. 1882. . 1882.. 1884 . i!878 1881.. 1882.. 1881.. 1881.. Comal DecaturH. Miller... Grenada H. F. Dimmock Lone Star 2296 2,572 2,626 2,255 2,217 2,284 2,265 Finance .... Quyandotte Lampasas Louisiana Nacoochee New York Newport Onoka (lake steamer) Philadelphia Rio Grande San Bias Oregon Queen of the Pacific Roanoke .... 2385 2,728 2,354 2081 San Juan San Marcos 2 839 2,359 2,729 2,266 2,000 2,135 Seneca State of California... Tioga (lake steamer). Walla Walla Tallahassee. .. Umatilla Willamette Total, 56 steamers, 138,155 tons. Other na- tions have 1,819 steamers of from 2,000 to 3,000 tons. BETWEEN 1,000 AND 2,000 TONS. When built. Name. Tons. When built. Name. Tons 1877 Aransas' 1,157 1880. Breakwater. 1.045 1881. 1872. 1880. 1874 Caracas City of San Antonio City of Columbia . . City of Panama 1,589 1,605 1,878 1 490 1884. 1875. 1874. 1868 City of Topeka City of Atlanta .... City of Chester . . . Costa Rica ,057 ,621 ,106 457 1870. 1878. 1872. Georgia General Whitney... George W. Clyde. . . 1,900 1,8411 1,805 1878. 1673. 1866. Gate City George W Elder. .. Harlan ,993 ,709 ,163 1873. 1879 Johns Hopkins; Manhattan 1,471 1 525 1873. 1872 Knickerbocker New Orleans. . ,642 ,440 1881 Ozarna 1 028 1873 Richmond 1 436 1873 State of Texas. . 1 549 18S3. Spartan ,596 1882 Valencia 1 598 1871 William Crane ,417 1869 William Lawrence l'047 1877 Yaquina 1 24J Total, 28 steamers, 41,415 tons. Other nations have over 2,600 steamers of from 1,000 to 2,000 tons. RECAPITULATION. Class. No Tons. Steamers over 3,000 tons 17 57,018 Steamers between 2 000 and 3 000 tons 56 138,155 Steamers between 1,000 and 2,000 tons ?S 41,419 Grand total 101 236,58* This is a very poor exhibit of American sea- going steamers. It shows very few above 3,OOC tons, and not all of these are employed. A line of steamships was started from Philadelphia to Europe, consisting of the Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, each of 3,100 tons, but it was soon found that they could not compete with foreign , lines for causes already stated. Then they were purchased by the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and started out again on a quixotic career. The same result followed, and the company had to withdraw and lay them up — a long row of hulks now, looking very much like those of the Navy laid up in "Rotten Row. " Their short existence indicated that the national spirit v hich influenced a portion of our citizens met with no corresponding feeling ip other quarters, and these vessels became the victims of that temerity which now and then animate citizens anxious to redeem our commerce and place the flag once more upon the sea. The above tables show what an increase there has been in foreign tonnage, owing to the sys- tem of subsidies. In addition to this, in 1860, ships built of iron were gaining in popular favor abroad, an idea that was encouraged in England because ships could be built of a ma terial of which England had an abundance, whereas her supply of timber was limited, ID the mean time, the United States, with plenty of timber, but building no iron ships, began to feel the effects of the new mode of construction in Great Britian, and in consequence were com- pelled to accept low rates of freight, and, at length, to sell their ships, so that in 1865 we had but one- third of our foreign commerce, while that of Great Britian had largely in- creased. The iron ships were encouraged by the British Government, for it was seen what a preponderance in tonnage would soon be given their mercantile marine, while the United States did nothing to encourage shipbuilding, except forbidding registers to foreign-built ves- sels, and no plant existed in the country for turning out such ships as were being multiplied 33 in Great Britian. It would seem as if our countrymen were so bewildered by the number and size of the steamers constructed abroad, and so delighted at the luxurious accommoda- tion afforded European travelers at so reasona- ble a rate, that they became converts to the English idea, forgetting that the advent of these steamers was a death-blow to the hope of reviving our ocean steam marine. Since that time the decline of our vessels has continued, and at present the tonnage of this country engaged in foreign trade is less than it was in 1810, and if no remedy is applied, it will ere long disappear from the ocean. The advo- cates of free ships contend that the existing state of affairs is largely owing to our navigation laws, and that the only remedy is to authorize the building of our vessels on the Clyde and Mersey; but I think it safe to say that the re- peal of our navigation laws would result in the destruction of our coastwise carrying trade, and that the art of shipbuilding would be one of the lost arts as far as we are concerned. The best argument against this plan is that the nation which has so nearly succeeded in driving us from the ocean is a strong advocate for free ships. Our present facilities for building iron and gteel ships are poor enough, as is shown by the fact that none of the builders could contract at once for the ships lately authorized by Congress and agree to finish them in a stated time, while in England such contracts would be accepted in a week, and the ships would be in commission in eighteen months. From this circumstance arises the desire of many people to have our ships built abroad instead of devoting their energies to in- creasing the facilities at home, when the same 34 results would follow here as now obtain in Great Britain. But suppose we could purchase a ship in Eng- land for $600,000 that would cost $700,000 in this country. Would it be any profit to the United States that the purchaser gained $100,- 000 while the nation lost $600,000 spent in for- eign labor and material? Would it not be bet- ter to retain the money at home and circulate it among our mechanics and laborers? In such matters we might well take a leaf from Eng- land's book. She spares no effort to keep her laboring people employed in building up her great commercial marine and invincible navy. I remember when American merchants were the most prominent men all along the Pacific coast of this continent, and our flag, waving at the peak of our splendid ships, outnumbered all others four to one. Americans held nearly all the trade, and then it was foreigners cried out that it was all passing into our hands. But to- day how great the difference! There are no American merchants to speak of; they have handed over all their right and title to trade to the British merchants, to whom are consigned the numerous steamships loaded with goods, among which none from our country will be found. England has captured our trade, and we are now, like the little fish that follow in the wake of the shark, gaining a scanty subsistence from the monster's leavings. V, EAST INDIA TRADE. It has been the ambition of the leading com- mercial nations for centuries to control the trade 35 with the East Indies. The nation that could do it would dominate the commercial world. In the palmy days of our commerce, when our great clipper ships made such quick passages from China and India to England and the United States, there seemed a fair prospect of the bulk of the trade falling into American hands, but the building of great ocean steam- ships and the granting of generous subsidies by the British Government put a stop to all this. America, with the best of iron and the best of mechanical skill, could not compete with her rival. Trip-hammers do not grow spontaneously, and a plant such as was established in England can only be provided by great capitalists backed by the aid of Government. Driven from the ocean, we tried what could be done on land, and by Government assistance built the railroads to the Pacific, part of the straight and short road to India, China and Ja- pan. The project then was to subsidize a line of steamers from San Francisco to China and Japan, and the great trade with those countries would be ours; the time from New York to Hong-Kong would be thirty-four days, whereas by the old route around the cape of Good Hope eighty-six days were required, with all the vicis- situdes of weather and climate. We subsidized a line of steamers, which was eminently success- ful as long as the subsidy lasted, but at length the British put steamships on this route, which curtailed the American profits very materially, and the stoppage of the subsidy to the Pacific Mail Steamship Company reduced its line to an ordinary affair, and our promised wealth flowed into British coffers. Thus the hopes of American trade with Japan particularly, turned out delusive, and the matter stands about as follows: FOREIGN COMMERCE OF JAPAN. Country. Imports. Exports. Totai. Great Britain $15,878,000 $ 3,084.000 $18 962,000 United States