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

20 TAE MARINE. REVIEW DEVOTED TO EVERYTHING AND EVERY INTEREST CONNECTED OR ASSOCIATED WITH MARINE MATTERS ON THE FACE OF THE KARTH. Published every Thursday by The Penton Publishing Company, CLEVELAND, OHIO. CHICAGO: MONADNOCK BUILDING. PITTSBURG: PARK BUILDING NEW YORK: 150 NASSAU STREET. Correspondence on Marine Engineering, Ship Building and Shipping Subjects Solicited. Subscription, $3.00 per annum. To Foreign Countries, $4. 50. Subscribers can have addresses changed at will. The Cleveland News Co. will St noly the trade with the NagiNE REVIEW through the regular channels of the American News Co. Entered at the Post Office at Cleveland, Ohio, as Second Class Matter. MAY 25, 1905. Why should the government of the United States seek to evade the effect of laws from which its citizens cannot escape? The action of the Isthmian Canal Commission in deciding to buy two ships from Great Britain 'is indefensible. If the protective tariff policy has made it impossible for the American ship builder to build a ship as cheaply as it can be built abroad the government should be bound by that policy quite as much as the American ship owner is. It has no right to evade the consequences of its own acts simply be- cause it has the power to do so. No one seriously questions the fiscal policy of this government. Under it the nation has prospered wonderfully. But it would be useless to deny that material is no higher in this country than in Great Britain or that wages are no higher than they are in Europe. Everyone knows that the contrary is true. Labor is paid a better wage in this country than abroad and a manufacturer pays a higher price for his material. How then can it be ex- pected that a ship, which is the product of a hundred arts, giving more diversified employment than any other product of mankind, can be built as cheaply in this country as abroad. The government knows this very well; the administration which is committed of the settled policy of protection, knows it very well. Why should it, therefore, pursue so grossly unjust a policy toward American citizens who have in good faith invested their money in ship yards of this coun- try? It is understood that President Roosevelt has assumed all responsibility for the adoption of this policy by the Isthmian Canal Commission and has in- timated that it is a question upon which congress, if it feels so disposed, should act. Congress would better act. If the American ship builder had been given the same chance that practically every other manufacturer in the United States has been given there would be no necessity of going to Great Britain for ships. But congress has left this one industry unprotected with the result that it cannot meet the competition of other nations. An. inconsiderable amount of. ship building is now under way in the United States, due absolutely to the neglect. which this industry 'has received from the government. There is not a single ship building in the United States for the foreign trade and there is no prospect of any being built. This action on the part of the Isthmian Canal Commission. may be a blessing in disguise for it may have the effect of stirring con- gress to action. At any rate a great many Republican leaders have already manifested their displeasure at the action of the Isthmian Canal Commission and the president's endorsement of it. One of them has even gone so far as to say that had congress. advanced aid to shipping no such action would ever have taken place. What the government now, however, proposes to do, is to own foreign ships and to sail them under foreign flags. They cannot be sailed under the stars and stripes. What argument can possibly be advanced to excuse this action on the part of the administration ? Are there not enough American ships in existence to take. care of the commerce with this canal? Two ships that were built for ocean trade on the great lakes swung idle at their moorings in Brooklyn, N. Y,. for more than a year and were sold a few months ago for less than half what it cost to build them. Does that look as though it was impossible to get ships? What right has the national government to go into the ship owning business in competition with its own citizens? Does any one pretend that freight will be more cheaply transported in these two imported and government-owned ships than it would be in the ships now owned by American citizens? The whole career of government ownership has been an extravagance and the people have been compelled to pay more than they would have paid had the work been done under private contract. 'When congress convenes on Dec. I one of its first acts should be 'to rescind this action of the Isthmian Canal Commission and to require the transportation to the canal zone of all products to be used in the construction of the canal in American bot- toms. _ By such action only can faith be kept with American citizens, who have invested money in ship yards and ships and who are bound by the exactness ot a protective policy to pay good wages and good prices for material.