AMERICAN SHIPPING.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1358, 8 February 1912, Page 2

AMERICAN SHIPPING.

. EFFECTS OF THE PANAMA CANAL. In view of tin , pro-prclive nj:ciiin;,' of thi! l'aiiaui:! (laiuil, the "imor , shins" aj;ilation iu thv I'liilsd-Sliili's i< ii'kcly In lrad iu very early h-ijislalion, and it may he (.-ays (hi; Liinilon ■•.Morniiij,' l'n>l") that in the nut distant fiilnru we shall wittlu- resuscitation of the American miTeuntilf.' mnriiip. At any nitc, this great canal.will transtorin iiiternaliiuiul and as the situatiiin i> full of IKi.-sibililic.s it may not be amis.-. l<> oll'or ii brief review of both IJiili.-h and American .shipping and shipbuilding iu tht'ir wider aspects. At one time America was nur chief rival in the ocean carryiiiK tradp; and it is pos-ibh , (hat hi.-ltn-y may rcp-.-at itM'lf. Lot us, at any rate, try to clear up a feir popiiliir iallacics by a statement of tho facts, ll is constantly said that ISritniii .mves her supremacy in shipbuilding to I'reo-tradp. It is as consistently asserted that the decline of American .shipping is due to I'rutccßon. In the sixty y-tvus that elapscl from 17110 to thn middle of the ninctccufh rpntury the Amurican shipping and shipbuilding trades were raised from a very low to'a very high status. In the sixty years (hat havi , dap.-cd since tho iniddlv iif thn niiicU'Ciilh ei'iitury, the twin indiistiies have dropped hack to a low level relatively to the coiumiTcial importance of the country. Thus American shipping has had two ijenerations of progrois followed by two gpiierutions.of rotrogression, iiud tin; roniarkiiblo circumstance is that the progress was effected under Protection while this retrogression has occurred under conditions of I'ree-trado. When the first Federal Govcrnincnt was c.-lab-lishcd in 1789 the American merchant marine was in just as weak ;i condition, relatively, as it is now. Its total gross tonnage'was a paltry 12:1,000 tons. Xinotenths of America's imports and exports were carried in ships which were not American. About (if them wore carried in British ships. But the now Government, in its first Act for tlia protection and encouragement of native industries, laid down a sot of laws, duos, and Customs duties specially designed tc> transfer American trade from foreign to home vessels. Foreigners were squeezed out of the American trade as. inst as American yards could launch ships to tako their place. In twenty-one years the gross tonnage of America's merchant marine rose from lii.OOI) tons to 981,0.00 tons, and the proportion of the country's ocean commerce carried in home-owned vessels rose from 10 per cent; t.i no psr cent, of the whole. That was under Protection. THE PROTECTION POLICY. Protection in one form or another— mainly in (he shape of bounties and subsidies for homo ships nnd high duties against foreign. ships or. goods carried in foreign ships—continued down to 18G1, and the twin industries of shipbuilding and shipowi\ing prospered. In the 'iiftioß, America's ocean-going tonnage reached 2,500,000 tons, and her flag was on every sea. Tho lake, river, and coastal trade also grow. In tho.-o days the United States built more ships than the United Kingdom. In 1555, for example, American builders launched 583,000 tons of new shipping—ii tomingo not attained by British builders until IS7I. Down to 1855 bounties were paid even to fishermen and in respect of the building of fishing vessels in the United States, for the fishing industry was regarded as the nursery of the Navy. The shipping fraternity.was as highly protected—and, it may be added, as progressive—then as the iron and steel industry has been in more recent years. About 1555, however, (lie -agricultural interests set up a vigorous agitation for tho withdrawal of the State, favours enjoyed by shipping.. As a .result Ih'st.one. and then n not her oi' Ihe favours-were withdrawn between 1855 and ibOl, and, finally, tho ocean shipping industry was pushed clean out of the scope oi' (ho country's protective laws, and from that time the industry has withered. 'Che tonnage of new shipping launched in tho United Slates dropped from 583,001) tons in 1555 to 214,000 tons in 1800, to 17-1,000 tons in ISG2, and ns late as ]SBf> to !)5,00l) tons, in spite of the growth of population and commerce. The purely building branch of the industry has recovered again from that low ebb, aided by naval work and the- still protected coastal trade; but in shipbuilding as a whole, and iu ocean shipping particularly, America occupies nothing like the position her commerce entitles her to. With an aggregate import and export trade not much below that of this country, and with an enormous'coast-line, America only possesses about one-tenth as much oceancarrying capacity as we do. Here are the figures :— Gross Tonnages . of Steamships. Britain, .including colonies 18,000,0011. Gcvinaiiy :i,959,000 United States 1,1)12,000 France 1,118,0110 Norway 1,-122,000 Japan 1,147,000 A DECLINING INDUSTRY.. American shipping, deprived since the middlo of the last century rif a' share of that protection which lias bfpii'a Horded other industries, has been unable to withstand the competition of other nations. Burdened with cesi'y building, due mainly to the coal and iron ore, and the iron and steel works being far inland, coupled with very high wagr-s; burdened also with dear labour on the ships owing to great prosperity on land, the American shipowner has boon handicapped. According to American law, American industries aro entitled to such protection from, outside . competition, as will balance the difference -between labour and other costs at home and abroad, coupled with reasonable profits, but the ocean shipping trade is outside (ho law; it enjoys no such protection, it. is left to strugdo along under conditions of Free-trade, and it is America's one decliniug industry! American capitalists have been able to find more profitable investments for their money, and American workmen better wages for their labour, in the protected industries on.shore than in tile unprotected trade on the sea. That is the plain fact about the lmich-talked-of decline of American shipping.

Patriotic Americans have, long regretted the decline of their one-time proud merchant marine, and for at least twenty years a persistent agitation has been 'conducted in tho States for protective shipping !c;,'Ls];ition. One school of thought advocates, discriminating tariffs against goods carried in foreign .ships; another favours the payment of direct subsidies to home vessels. The suggestion is also made that Panama Canal dues shall Ijp- so levied as to favour American ships.. The direct stib«id.v idea seems the roost largely supported. At any rate, the "more ship--" agitation lias Lppii vigorously pushed by. the Merchant; Marine Leatrue, and is now receiviupr very influential support. The specific of the United States Government being obliged to charter foreign ships to carry coal for its Navy when on. a cruise round tin- World -recently seemed to touch the national prido. while the Panama Canal is forcing the shipping question right: into the forefront of AtiH-rican politics. Many members of Congress and Senate, nearly every meinlipi- of the' Administration, nnd the President himself are pledged to advanco the "nioro ships" movement. SUBSIDIES. PROPOSED. It is urged I hat the, huge expenditure upon the- canal will hive- becii incurred mainly for I ho benefit, of foreign shipping unless America puts herself iu possession of a largely augmented fleet of merchant v»sspls The President lias insisted strongly upon this point, and urges as a practical smrgestion, that Congress should provide at least six or eight million dol-1-u's a year to assist the creation and upkeep of rcffiilar lines between the United States and South America and the Orient. Besides, the argument k> industriously promulgated by the Jfarinp Lenfruo that tho prnti-ction from the competition of cheap lalwur countries vliicli is extended to the manufacturing industries of America cannot logically be withhold from shipping appears unanswerable. Moreover the pxnuipli- of other countries h beili" kept well t« the front by the lca<jun speakers and writers. It is pointed out that nnd'T tin- MibMilies systoin .lapau , -' merchant fleet has grown from 200,0011 tuns til 1,1(7,000 (nn , : since 1831; thai Ocmuiny's li-w i-rown from 300,000 lons to nearly ■IOfIOOdO toil" Milder the Subsidies Ait carried in ISS.I: mid thai l-'ranc- and inn.-l other countries subsidise their merchant ships, while even Hrilnin iwy> a prii-i----fnr mail cnn-ying fcarne-ly distinguishablp from a subsidy, although her shippiaj

trade enjoys uniqu« natural and economic favour.,. Of roiirsi', it will lx> no oa-sy task furuur American cousins to raise and maintain a merchant ilcct commensurate with the voltiitie of lln'ir commerce. Nature, geography, nnd social customs arc all against tlinn.' Tiu'ii' coal is mostly a thousand miles I'l'inn their iron, and their Moel works several hundreds ill' niilos from {hoir slii|iyiu-d-!. This means high assemblage charges for their materials. Then, again, (lu'ir workmen's standard of livin;: compel- high wage?, Both building and navigation oosls arc p.ictssivc in AmeriiM , .. It costs about as much to keep nn American shipyard workman n« two foreigner.-, and about as ninch to keep nn American sailor as three or four foreign sailors. Thus Hie protection or niieuurageiii'.'nv, extended to American shipping will have to l». substantial, or it will not avail. Hut that, is a question for American statesmen. What we have to rec 'guise is ilmt if tlie United Plates Government does deride li protect shipping, as it protects iron, steel, linplat.es, etc., we may c oon sco in the. American shipowner our keenest rival on Iho ocean. What America has done once she may do again—drive fin-oigii vos-els out of her trade. The river, lake, and coastal shipping of tlie Ujii/ed Slates is_ reserved for homo-built vessels, and tlie ftaet has a carrying caua--city of 5,000.000 tons. If, as is highly prohablo, this protective policy is extended to the ocean trade, we shall se? a Rival, revival of American dripping and shipbuilding, largely at the expense of Great Britain.