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

276 average of 9.05 lbs.. or six per cent Coal as fired is the test of comparative efficiency afloat. higher efficiency. The survey further says in its re- port on Washington coals: The bituminous coking coals of Washing- ton are the only coking coals on the Pacific coast of the United States, and the coals of New Castle and Renton in the South Puget Sound field are generally of high grade. And again: The steamship consumption in trade with Alaska and the Orient is now the most im- portant market for the high grade bitumin- ous coals of Washington. : Seattle harbor «alone, which can ac- commodate the entire navy, has three large fueling docks, and of these, one company alone has an output of 4,000 used almost entirely tons per day, for bunkers, and which costs on board, The now untrimmed, $3.75 per gross ton. freight alone on the cargoes Atlantic 1s $3.75 per ton, and this rate is parti- wnder charter from the cularly favorable and only obtained because the time of delivery allowed the foreign ships carrying it to arrive on the coast at an opportune time to secure grain and timber cargoes, thus that . their presence is a disturbing factor. On in itself demonstrating the previous contracts the freight rate was about $7.00 per ton because the time of delivery was unfavorable for return cargoes. If Mr: Winthrop expects to main- tain his position as coal expert extra- ordinary, he will need to have the geological survey revise its reports. His argument is as. false as the assurance of sympathy. The navy has not now and never has had any sym- pathy with the merchant marine. Its whole effort and policy is to create support for a huge fleet of colliers The discussed this "under navy control. MaRrINE REVIEW heretofore collier question, and it is mot neces- The MET = Gary 10 recur to it at this. time. Hayy is the worst enemy. the chant marine has, but there .comes @ day of reckoning for all, and that of the navy is at hand. We have heard much capacity and inefficiency of the Span- of, the in- ish navy, of the condition of its ships, and of late we have heard more or less, of a similar character, as to the French navy, but so far as administra- tion is concerned, our own is no bet- ter. If our ships are better built or to help ® congressmen, THe Marine REVIEW cared for, it is simply due to the inherent higher efficiency, man for man, of the American workmen and crews. Besides all this, the chartering of foreign ships at all, at any price, is a flagrant violation of our 'own coast- ing laws, and the desire of the navy particular contractors and and of 7 the genera', who gave an opinion in their extreme attorney support, must have been when they overrode them. But ater all, the most humiliating feature of the whole business is that the head of a great department should, over his own signature, assume responsi- bility for such puerile, unfounded statements in the attempt to bolster up and apologize for actions which bring the blush of shame to the face of everyone outside of the navy de- partment. A PROTECTED INDUSTRY. If anyone doubts that Britain pro- tects her shipping let him examine the British tariff commission's report on the engineer.ng industries and he will be instantly pursuaded otherwise. Commenting on this report in so far as it applies to marine engineering and ship building the Steamship of London says: The evidence shows the great stimulus given to the British engineering and_ ship- building industry generally by the system ot Admiralty. contracts. In effect these con- stitute a rigid system of protection, since builders for the Admiralty are expressly pre- cluded from buying any materials except from British firms on the Admiralty © list. As one experienced witness says:--"'Our Ad- miralty authorities really specify the firms from whom we have to buy materials for British warships; they give us a list of makers and we may only go to a maker who is upon that list. If other manufacturers wish to qualify and apply to be put upon the list, the Admiralty make an examination of their works and add their names if they consider them eligible, and they generally do if the firms have any status at all. The battleship industry is really a protected in- dustry as far as the British Admiralty is concerned. Nevertheless, we probably could not build a _ battleship appreciably cheaper if we.were permitted to get our materials in any part of the world, excepting as re- gards such an item as_ shafting, for which we cannot obtain real competition amongst the British makers. On the whole cost of the ship, however, that is comparatively small. This system applies to everything we buy for the Admiralty. We get all the material for building a British battleship from . British, firms." Opinions differ as to the advantage derived by individual firms from particular Admiralty and other Govern- ment contracts, _ but the general impression is that the engineering and shipbuilding in- dustry as a whole must necessarily derive considerable advantage from this system of Admiralty protection by reason especially of the security it gives to manufacturers for the employment of a definite amount of skilled labor, plant, and machinery. Take the opening sentence: "The August, 1909 evidence shows the great stimulus given to the British engineering and ship building industry generally by the system of Admiralty contracts, In effect these constitute a rigid sys- tem of protection since builders for the Admiralty are expressly precluded from buying any materials except from British firms on the Admiralty lists." We should say that it was a rigid system of protection. inflexible. It whatever to the builder. It is absolutely leaves no alternative It is more prohibitive than any scheme of pro- tection ever devised or ever conceived for the United States, for 'builders in the United States may at least use foreign material if they will pay the In Britain the ship build- nothing except articles duty on it. er can use of home manufacture, not even if he get equally as good at one-half the price elsewhere. And this applies niot only to naval vessels but all ships that are intended for Admiralty sub- vention and mail contracts. Has the policy paid? Undoubtedly it hls. Brit- ain would not today have the prepon- derance of tonnage if it didn't pay. She may bea free trade country but she does not practice free trade in the vital matters of national defense and over- sea prestige, in the extension of her mail facilities and the opening up of What an im- measurable advantage her devotion to new avenues of trade. her own industries has given her. Great Britain has, in fact, ever since the advent of steam navigation con- tinuously protected her shipping. She has not lapsed in this jealous watch- fulness for a single day. She began granting mail subsidies as soon as steam demonstrated the practicability of deliveries oversea upon a regular schedule. She opened her treasury wide to ships that were constructed with due regard to their availability as naval auxiliaries. She encouraged her ship yard and engine plants with steady orders as she is now encour- aging British industry throughout the kingdom by reserving to British man- ufacture the entire equipment of her immense navy. In the face of this how can anyone say that Great Britain does not aid her shipping? She is the bravest of