The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

12 MARINE REVIEW. [November 16, MERCHANT MARINE IN THE FOREIGN TRADE. BY CLEMENT A. GRISCOM, PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL NAVIGATION CO. r Questions Submitted by the Marine Review. 1. Shall the United States continue to allow its mer- chant marine in foreign trade to fight a losing battle until it entirely passes out of existence and foreign nations absorb the ocean carrying of our entire import and export trade? 2. Shall the United States decide, as its permanent non-partisan public policy, that an equitable share of its im- ports and exports must be carried on vessels of the United States, built in our own ship yards and flying our own flag, and that congress will enact whatever national legislation may be needed to stimulate and encourage our citizens to create, maintain and operate the vessels this policy calls for? 3. lf it is recommended that congress shall enact re- medial legislation, what shall it be, and why? Editor Marine Review: There can be but one answer, an emphatic "no," - to your first inquiry: 'Shall the United States continue to allow its mer- chant marine in foreign trade to fight a losing battle until it entirely passes out of existence and foreign nations absorb the ocean carrying of our en- tire import and export trade?" From natural advantages and intelligent legislation our agriculture, manufactures and internal commerce have grown to most satisfactory and formidable proportions. Navigation, the fourth pillar of our prosperity, in so far as over-sed trade is concerned, has become a foreign prop, which disfigures the national structure and is a most uncertain support in time of need. If we wish to be a symmetrically powerful nation of the first class we must turn our attention to our mer- chant marine. The country is like an athlete, developed in trunk and limbs, but with a broken and helpless right arm. Second: With equal emphasis it may. be stated that the United States should decide as its permanent non-partisan public policy that an equitable share of its imports and exports must be carried on vessels of the United States, built in our own ship yards and flying our own flag and that con- gress should enact whatever national legislation may be needed to stim- ulate and encourage our citizens to build, maintain and operate the vessels this policy calls for. To be permanent a policy in this country must commend itself to the most liberal and intelligent thought of both parties. Our navigation is distinguished from all other industries, for it is distinctly national, not local. Our shipping in foreign trade competes solely with foreign ship- ping, and any equitable measure to increase American ships is a measure to strengthen the United States as a nation and to improve transportation facilities from which the whole country will derive benefit. A shipping bill is for the general welfare. National navigation is a necessity to the public defence. There are millions of strong-and easily trained arms, ready to defend the country on land. On the sea we must have ships and the men to navigate them, and these are not to be had for the asking ina day ora month. The fathers of the Republic believed that they had in the merchant marine left to us ample means to supplement the navy in defending the country at sea. We have allowed it so to shrivel that in 'our war with Spain we lacked. the vessels to transport our troops to the scenes of action, and were forced to 'buy vessels, under foreign flags, manned with foreign crews to conduct our military operations.. A few days ago a steamship, bringing to their homes our soldiers from Manila, was stopped at Hone Kong because she was a British vessel and had failed to comply with some British regula- tions. Out of courtesy to our government the steamer was released and allowed to proceed on her way. Trifling as the incident was in itself, it is the evidence of a state of dependence, inconsistent with our rank among nations, and mortifying to men of all parties. A necessity in time of war, a powerful merchant marine is also one of the best assurances of peace. "It is commerce," said John Stuart Mill, "which is rapidly rendering war obsolete, by strengthening and multiply- ing the personal interests which are in natural opposition to it,' and he added: "It may be said without exaggeration that the great extent /and rapid increase of international trade, in being the principal guarantee of the peace of the world, is the great permanent security for the uninter- rupted progress of the ideas, the institutions and the character of the human race." These are considerations which appeal with as much force to the Democrat as to the Republican, to the ultra believer in the doctrine of laissez-faire as to the believer in protection. To the latter the value of our foreign carrying trade, worth doubtless $200,000,000 annually, and the de- velopment of ship building, with its subsidiary industries of boiler and machinery building; and so on through lines of activity until the mine and the forest are reached, furnish additional reasons for the adoption of the permanent maritime policy to which you refer. I have not been able to refrain from noting a few general matters, which take the subject; in my opinion, out of the range of legislation for the benefit of one industry. Doubtless you have done me the honor to address your inquiries to me, however, as one identified with American shipping, and you probably desire more particularly a reply to your third question: "What remedial legislation should congress enact?" A bill was introduced at the last session of congress by Senator Hanna of Ohio, and Representative Payne of New York, and with amendments reported by Senator Frye of Maine, known as Senate bill 5590. In the favorable report of the bill the Republican senators were joined by the Democratic senators of the two great maritime states, Senator Murphy of New York, and Senator White of California. Among its advocates be- Wi fore the committees of congress were the distinguished democratic candi- date for vice president, the Hon. Arthur Sewall of Maine, and Mr. James J. Hill of Minnesota, one of the most influential Democrats and most .en- terprising citizens of the northwest. The bill has been earnestly favored by Democratic as well as by Republican newspapers, and it should be said that such opposition in the press as it has encountered--based it seems to me on insufficient information and altogether erroneous statistics--has also been outside of party lines. As a Republican I find that it has the strongest support from Republicans because that party has always stood for progressive, constructive legislation. Those who have attacked the bill offer no alternative, which at this time stands the remotest chance of enactment. The "free ship" bill was defeated without a dissenting vote a few years ago, by the senate committee on commerce of virtually the same membership as that which reported this bill by a strong majority, to which both parties contributed. Our treaties stand like a wall in the way of even the consideration of the discriminating duties proposition. While the business interests with which I am identified would be satisfied. with ad- equate mail pay legislation, such a measure would be obviously insuffi- cient to promote our maritime interests generally and to provide the policy to which you refer and which the country desires. The choice, therefore, seems to be between senate bill 5590 and no legislation what- ever. Because it is the only practicable measure, I favor its enactment. It is the most carefully considered measure relating to the American merchant marine which has been presented in congress in my generation. The preparation of the bill began more than two years ago. At the sug- gestion of Senator Frye, whose name is more closely identified with our shipping and foreign commerce than that of any other man in our public life at present, a committee was organized in March, 1897, to investigate the subject and if possible draft a practical measure to establish the Amer- ican merchant marine in foreign trade. The committee was chosen with- out regard to party. In it were represented steamship and sailing inter- ests, the foreign and coasting trade, ship owners and ship builders, the Atlantic and 'Pacific coasts and the great lakes, business men, lawyers and legislators, those who believed in mail subsidies, in free ships, in discrim- inating duties, and those without any preconceived views, except as to the necessity for action. As counsel in respect to constitutional and inter- national law, as well as to legislative forms, ex-Senator George F. Ed- munds was selected, as one whose views on these matters would command the country's respect. This committee spent months in the study of dif- ferent propositions, examined the laws of other nations, and investigated the conditions and difficulties of our foreign sea-borne trade. Senate bill 5090 in its fundamental propositions was the unanimous conclusion of 'these labors. While there are small particulars, of course, on which opinion differed the measure is not a compromise, but rather a composite bill, believed to have justification for every feature in our established national policy or in the successful methods of other maritime nations. The difference in the cost of building ships in the United States and Great Britain and the difference in the expense of operating ships under the American and other foreign flags have been ascertained as closely as possible. These differences are to be made good, under certain condi- tions, to every American vessel carrying cargoes in competitive foreign trade. There is no favoritism, no trustism, involved in the measure. In the case of fast mail steamships, over 14 knots and upwards and 1,500 gross tons, or over, an additional allowance is made to offset the financial aid in various shapes allowed by nearly all foreign nations to nearly all vessels of this description. The assistance proposed is measured by the conditions in competition to be met, and is relatively no greater in the case of the large fast steamship than in the case of the smaller and slower sailing vessels. The limits which I must put to my reply to your question forbid a review of the figures in detail. The company, with which I am identified, has built and is building vessels in the United States and Great Britain, and is operating vessels under the flags of these nations, and Bel- gium. I feel, therefore, qualified to state that the extent of assistance pro- posed by senate bill 5590 is not more than sufficient to offset differences in cost of construction and operation with which I am familiar. As a safeguard the bill requires American owners to give bonds to build' at home new vessels equivalent to 25 per cent of their present tonnage before they can avail themselves of the act, a proviso which involves the con- struction of over 200,000 tons of shipping, with an expenditure of from $15,000,000 to $20,000,000 in the near future in home ship yards. -- The bill also provides for the registration of from 300,000 to 350,000 tons of steamships, owned by Americans but navigated under foreign flags, on the condition that the owners build an equivalent amount of ton- nage in the United States, thus providing for from $30,000,000 to $45,000,- 000 further expenditure for the benefit of American labor. Outside of and much exceeding these amounts will be the expenditures on labor due to the stimulus which. in the opinion of friend and foe, the bill will give ta American ship building. What will it cost? Exaggerated estimates of the expenditure, based upon fallacious premises, have thus far been the only criticism of the bill. The Marine Review, if it has not already done so, will doubtless point out the absurdity of those widely circulated statistics. . (See Alexander R. Smith in the November Forum). By the terms of the proposed bill the maximum expenditure applicable to any one year is fixed at $9,000,000. We now spend $1,500,000 annually for ocean mails. As the bill does away with this expenditure, the new appropriation called for at the utmost will be $7,500,000 per annum. This amount cannot be reached for several years. Assuming that all our available registered vessels were in opera- tion under its provisions this year, the expenditure would be about $4,000,- 000, from which should be deducted about $1,500,000 paid already for ocean mails. Between an initial new expenditure of about $2,500,000 and the maximum new expenditure of $7,500,000, several years must elapse, during which our ship yards will have multipled, our shipping in foreign