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

18 MARINE REVIEW. seen amen i cee [May 22 AMERICAN SHIPPING AND SHIP BUILDING. Mr. William A. Fairburn, nayal architect and engineer of the Eastern Ship Building Co., New London, Conn., lectured in a most interesting manner to a large audience at Fitchburg, Mass., a few days ago, His subject was "American Shipping and Ship Building." His views are in many respects unusual and probably will not be generally indorsed, par- ticularly his reference to the use of pneumatic tools. Mr, Fairburn main- tains that the only protection needed by American ship builders is the protection which will remove the present handicapping conditions and produce for the ship builder "a fair field and no favor" when brought into competition with the foreigner. Americans can manufacture steel and sell the same at a good profit at a price only 75 per cent, of that of Euro- pean producers, and yet the present tariff laws require duty being paid on all imported steel. This law should be repealed, and such tariff should be removed from all imported material that can be produced in America cheaper than'abroad. He says that the American steel market has no stability; the output is controlled and limited, and the prices are kept as high as the demand and limited supply will permit. Steel has been ship- ped to Britain and sold there cheaper than-to our own ship builders. Plates and shapes have been shipped abroad and sold in Europe at .95 cents per pound, when Americans were obliged to pay in some cases as much as 1.65 cents per pound for the same steel. The American market fluctuates in a ruinous manner, the prices paid for steel of government vessels increasing from 1.20 cents per pound up to 3.40 cents per pound in about four months. Andrew Carnegie's recent assertion that there is absolutely no patriot- ism in business is proved and daily illustrated by the business policy of the United States Steel Corporation. If European steel was allowed to enter this country free of duty, the stable British market would have a beneficial governing effect upon the Steel Corporation rates. This should be the-first step of the removal of the American ship builders' handicap in the contest for the world's ship construction. When this is done new mines should 'be opened, new mills built and the demand for steel supplied at a figure allowing for a reasonable profit. It is time to stop our "spread eagle" talk, Mr. Fairburn says, about the supremacy of American industries and remarkable richness of our mines and steel manufactories, for today all steel construction is retarded and new contracts prevented from taking definite form because of the unsatisfactory limited output of steel material, and the impossibility of obtaining definite promises of delivery before early in 1903. Moreover, all the purchasers of steel material know by bitter experience how much the promises of steel mills are worth. If steel was being sold today in America, with accompanying good deliveries, for the same price as steel is being sold in Britain, namely, 1.50 cents per pound for plates and 1.75 cents per pound for shapes, delivery at yard, or if steel could be imported into our country free of duty, then the United States would see an in- crease in its ship construction work of fully 35 per cent. over what it now is. Before the United States can compete with Britain in the production of steel vessels it is necessary that it obtain an advantage in the price of material partially sufficient to balance the great handicap of higher cost of labor. If the rates of wages remain as at present on both sides of the Atlantic, vessels could be built in America as cheap as in Europe, pro- vided steel material was delivered promptly in America, and this material sold with the same profit over cost as is the case in Britain. This is assuming that the American ship builder be given an opportunity to specialize and standardize certain types of construction, and that orders be given for vessels in sufficient quantities to warrant such a mode of procedure. At the present-time there is probably no yard on the sea coast of the United States--unless it be the Newport News yard with the Mor- gan ships--that has been called upon to build more than a couple of ves- sels from the same set of plans, patterns and moulds. The cost of fitting up or plating vessels in America by the universal mould method is much cheaper, and, if judiciously adopted, much better and more rapid than the orthodox British method. With pneumatic tools, Americans can equal the British hand cost figures for the driving of certain sizes of rivets, and for caulking and ship- ping, etc., but the cost of the expensive pneumatic plant and tools, and the maintenance of same, in many cases greatly offsets the very slight advantage gained with air power. It is extremely doubtful if the ship yard pneumatic plant is a good investment, for experience has proved that unskilled labor in the majority of cases cannot be employed successfully with these tools, and the initial cost and cost of maintenance is unusually large. The claim that pneumatic tools would permit of the use of un- skilled labor and the elimination of the disorganizing hand riveting squads has not been fulfilled in actual practice, and although power riveting is absolutely essential on rivets of large size where a man's muscular force and weight is not sufficient to thoroughly drive the rivets home, yet for ordinary ship riveting when the maintenance and depreciation of air plant are taken into consideration, pneumatic tools fail to produce the pro- nounced labor saving results that their advocates have prophesied. There- fore, it becomes quite apparent that American ship builders have to pay a great deal more for the riveting of their vessels than do their British cousins. Americans are apt to deceive themselves by comparing some of our best results gained with pneumatic tools against standard British prices, ignoring the fact that odd work, the more difficult work, and cost of pneumatic plant, changes the results greatly, and gives the British ship builder a great advantage in the comparison. : American ship builders save in the cost of production when compared with the British only in labor saving devices, and wherever unskilled labor and muscular force is required Americans suffer greatly in comparison, on account of the great difference in-the rates.of wages in the two countries. -The methods of handling material in American ship yards, the crane ser- 'vice over building berths, etc., all tend to give Americans a slight ad- vantage, but all these things as well as the universal method of mould construction, pneumatic tools, etc., are being gradually copied: abroad, : and unless Americans devise some superior labor saving devices, the ufo advantages that they are now gaining by their ingenuity will be G The labor question in American yards is a serious proposition. In reat Britain the trade unions are. strong and composed of good me- chanics who are compelled to serve an apprenticeship. Usually strong men control the situation, and by tact and good judgment avoid foolish unnecessary labor troubles. (We believe Mr, Fairburn speaks too opti- mistically of labor troubles in Great Britain. In our opinion there is no country so union-ridden as Britain--Ed.) In America, the labor unions are generally controlled by inferior ignorant men, and while these unions have all the disadvantages of the British societies, they have none of their advantages. Men after working a few months in a ship yard are permitted to join the union, and straightway attempt to dictate in the general policy and management of the ship yard. The great demand for practical ship builders in American yards, and the small supply to meet this ever-increas- ing demand, is responsible today for the inferior, incompetent floating class of so-called mechanics who are a source of great trouble and dis- grace to American ship building, as well as to the older competent me- chanics who built American vessels a few years ago. It is time to revive the old apprentice system, treat the boys as they were treated fifteen years ago, and with no pull or favoritism let the youths know that their only chance for advancement depends upon the possession of merit and the actual assertion of ability. Too many young men want to be draughtsmen before they can blue print or trace; naval architects and engineers without being draughtsmen and without having had any yard experience. It is time that we trained young men for fitters, riveters, chippers and calkers, carpenters, etc., for these trades pay very good wages, and these occupa- tions should be filled by intelligent American mechanics. Ship fittings and auxiliary machinery can be bought in America today cheaper than in Europe. Firms who manufacture the same apparatus on both sides of the Atlantic frequently affirm that the cost of production in America is less than in Britain. If water-tube boilers, windlasses, cap- stans, steering gears, winches, electrical apparatus, machine tools, station- ary engines, etc., can be built in America cheaper than in Europe, why is it that the propelling machinery of a steam vessel costs in America to- day about 40 per cent. more than it does in Britain? One of the principal reasons for this state of affairs is apparently the lack of standardizing, for American marine engine shops seldom build several engines from the same patterns, and standardizing in marine work is practically unknown. Moreover, American shops are usually disorganized on account of mer- chant and naval work undergoing construction simultaneously, and too many naval fads and expenses creep into what should be a more rugged merchant construction. American builders also frequently use superior materials, adjust and fit more carefully, have better finish, and in their cheapest work rival in quality of production European high-grade output. There is not an engine building company on the American sea coast that can build a cheap tramp steamer engine. Moreover, American owners, although appearing satisfied when buying British vessels, are never satis~ fied when American builders attempt to duplicate the British in the line of economies. There appears to be an unwritten law that American-built vessels shall have a superior equipment, both as regards hull and ma- chinery, and this fact alone frequently handicaps American builders. The best paying vessel and the most successful for the owner is the one that has the greatest money-earning power with the smallest initial cost. Fit- tings and items of equipment may produce increased economy, but the cost of maintenance, handling, and the initial cost may be such that they fail to pay sufficient interest on the investment to warrant their adoption. If American ship owners insist upon a higher class of ship construction than their British cousins, then they must also be reasonable in this mat- ter and expect to pay more for the construction of their ships. The differ- ence in actual cost between similar vessels built in Europe and in the United States at the same time is an interesting subject, and one on which it is very difficult to obtain authentic information. About seven years ago the St. Louis and St. Paul were built in an American yard at a price said to be 27.5 per cent. over a Scotch bid submitted. The large Atlantic trans- port ships, now building at Camden, N: J., are to cost, it is stated, 30 per cent. more than the sister ships built by Harland & Wolff of Belfast, Ire- land, and the smaller class of vessels, building in two American yards for the same owners, it is understood, will cost 36 per cent. more than similar vessels built in a British yard. If these figures are authentic, the Ameri- can ship builders are certainly very severely handicapped at the present time, and when to this question of increased price is added very unsatis- factory delivery, due to unsatisfactory material, markets and lack of skilled labor, the handicap seems sufficient to crush and trample down indefinitely the possibility of the demand for construction of American ships for foreign service. _ Mr, Fairburn does not think that the record made by American ship building up to date in the economical construction of vessels should be considered a fair criterion for comparison and final judgment. American yards have been greatly handicapped, enthusiasm has in many cases over- balanced good judgment. All classes of vessels have been built in almost every yard; torpedo boats, tramp steamers, steamboats, armor clads and yachts have been built simultaneously side by side by practically the same staff in the same yard. American ship builders are now emerging from a trying transition period. They have, under most trying circumstances, given pronounced evidence of their indomitable pluck and grit, but it is probably an undisputed fact that a more conservative business policy would have ultimately proved much better for the majority of ship build- ers and for American ship building. As long as naval work is responsible for the construction of ship building plants and the maintenance of same when in operation, the United States can never hope to be seriously con- sidered a worthy competitor of European merchant ship builders. I do not wish to disparage the building of the new navy. I am a strong ad: vocate of the construction of a fleet that will be in keeping with America's prestige, wealth and power, but if war vessels and merchant vessels con- tinue to be built side by side, and in the same shops in American ship yards by the same men and with the same methods as at present employed, then Europeans need not worry about American competition for many years to come, At the present time, however, the demand for merchant ship construction is so limited, that were it not for the government con- struction, there would not be work enough in the country to keep one- half of the present number of our ship yards busy. As long as the present limited demand for merchant ships continues, it is very desirable that all government work be built under private contract, and it will' always be possible for the United States government to contract for vessels with private builders cheaper than they'can build the vegsel§ themselves in fov- ernment navy yards. As soon as the demand for merchant ship 'con- struction permits, however, Mr. Fairburn advocates that certain Ameri-