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

" - PROPER SHIPPING LEGISLATION: Editor Marine Review: It was an observation of Dr. Frank- lin that experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other. There are some fools, however, who will not learn any- where, but grow up "wise in their own conceit." These "know it all" and never change opinion. They amuse the world some- what, but imagine they can also instruct it "out of their own head." To instruct at all one must have learned in some school, since one knows about exterior facts only what he has learned from exterior sources. A big bump of imagination, good for any amount of fiction, cannot be drawn upon for history, or for the facts relating to any subject. It is one thing to know, but a different thing to say; and one may easily make a fool of himself by saying things that he does not know. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the controversies of the day. Mr. John Maurice thinks Americans do too much of their own work and should import more than they do of the work of foreigners. The tariff prevents this and he hates it therefor. Desiring to hit the tariff a good rap on the fingers, he aHeged - that it was responsible for the too-high wages that disables Amer- icans to compete with foreigners, as he alleges, in building and running vessels, ergo, the remedy for our ship disablement is extraction of "protection" in the tariff. The writer having thor- oughly examined this theory--that no tariff or low tariff would operate to rehabilitate our marine--and found not a particle of -- proof in history or experience to sustain it, rejected it as mis- taken.* This was brought to the attention of Mr. M. and he did not like it. In return he sets up that the writer desires to monopolize "the shipping question' --and he a "civil engineer and nautical expert." Forbid it all the gods! In his reply he opens a battery, not of knowledge, but conceit; draws on his imagina- tion, not for statistics, but falsities, thinking by romance and words to win his contention. He would fain make the public believe that after more than thirty years' investigation of the sub- ject of necessary shipping legislation by the writer, he, never hav- ing given a month to it, perhaps not a week or a day, is the bet- ter authority. This appears a piece of conceit. Mr. M. speaks of my "intense hatred of everything foreign or British" preventing me "from seeing everything in the right light," and then gives six instances in which he pretends this is true. In each instance there is misrepresentation, misstatement, exaggeraton or untruth. Occupying a foreign standpoint, Mr. M. flinches at every disclosure of the greed, the cunning, the unfair- ness or the imposture of our rivals. He champions their cause. It is all "right," he says, only the writer cannot see it so on account of his "hatred." He is the "expert," the writer is the novice. His observations are theodolitic, as becomes his omni- spective power. Who can hold a candle for him? Nevertheless, it is demonstrable that foreigners, particularly the British, have gotten away with our carrying trade, by "all manner of means" from foul to vicious, favored by our present open policy. A full examination of the case cannot be miade without discovering and laying open these facts. Such examination is well calculated to make an American hate foreigners for cause. Foreigners should be fair and honorable in their competition; they induced the adop- tion of this policy, which they have taken advantage of to our detriment, and which pleases Mr. M. so well that he deprecates its eradication. It will Have to go, nevertheless. Doubttess his love for it balances the writer's hate. He must love it, because it has enabled the British to destroy our shipping power. He is not like the gallant Irishman, a volunteer, who defended the fort at Castine after his comrades had fled from an attack by a British "man-of-war." The landing of the boats had no terrors for him --he continued loading and firing an old carronade. The officer in command of the marines avoided its range, and getting behind the gun took Patrick prisoner. Discovering his nativity, the Briton denounced his conduct, as from one who "had no right at all to fire on His Majesty's forces," but Patrick knew better than that. "Arrah!" he exclaimed, "have I not the right to fight for the country that I get me bread in?" Here is our "civil engi- neer and nautical expert" getting his bread in our country but taking the part of our rivals and the spoilers of our trade and _ advocating policies and measures satisfactory to them. Mr. M. states that twelve years ago I worked for the passage of a "bounty bill" and a "postal service" or "subsidy" bill. The bounty bill of 1890-91 was a compromise measure agreed upon by friends of shipping who had held several conventions and found it easier to agree upon it than upon a bill on the constitu- tional principle, which was then not well understood. The un- derstanding was to try the bounty principle first. So it was tried _and its passage failed. The writer was not of the bounty faction, but he endeavored faithfully to get the bill enacted. The Repub- licans had a majority of seventeen in the house, two Democrats voted for it, and yet it miscarried for lack of three votes. The debate and the vote of rejection showed the vice and the inexpe- dience of the bounty principle. Right then and there the writer ceased fighting for it as a "lost cause." It is known that he had a controversy with the editor of the Chicago Tribune in 1870, in which he showed the advantage and advocated the necessity of changing policy to the original of the founders of the government, so no one has a right to question his judgment or even consistency in this matter. Besides, the studies of twelve years ought to in- crease his knowledge and to ripen his judgments and as for con- sistency, one would indeed be a fool, if finding himself in error he should stick to it through life. Mr. M. is a compass adjuster. Would he direct his course today by a needle that was corrected twelve years ago? If he would he is no "expert." It was argued for the "bounty bill" that it could be quickly MARINE REVIEW AND MARINE RECORD. | [Dec. 24, passed, but after going over from one session to another it was quickly defeated.' Also, that France had set an example that might be safely followed, our shipping friends forgetting that the powers of congress and of the French legislature differed in re- spect to government gratuities. The power of congress to estab- lish a bounty policy in favor of any business, occupation, trade or calling was called in question'in 1792. After a full debate, participated in by several of the makers of the constitution, the vote of -a large majority negatived the proposition. In regard to shipping, the makers of the constitution provided a way for the "encouragement" of it. That way may be taken or left. . Bounty or subsidy for the general marine may not, without violating the instrument, be substituted for it. Foreigners may prefer that we subsidize, if we do anything, but their advice will not be taken. ~ The writer having stated that in 1870 certain ship materials were freed of duty, Mr. M. replies that "an internal revenue tax" was then "added to the cost of vessels." This is fiction. The. writer was in the business of building vessels and denies that such tax was then thus "added." Mr. M. refers to "the blockade from 1812 to 1815 and its consequences" bringing the people "near | the verge of starvation." This is fiction with a grain of truth in it. There was some blockading done in front of the larger ports towards the close of the war, but if Mr. M. will consult statistics he will find to what small extent our importations were cut down. We got all that were essential for use. High freight and insurance kept out more goods than the enemy's ships. Pro- visions of all kinds abounded. We even fed some of our enemy's armed forces on land and sea. The "verge-of-starvation" talk is mere braggartism, as false as vain. The war of 1812 helped our . factories more than any tariff ever did. They prospered. Our successes at sea and on the lakes were marvelous to the people of Europe. Out of thirteen actions we won eleven victories. Our navy became renowned. Then our country was full of woods, now it is full of people, of wealth and of means for defence. We are able to assert and maintain our rights on land or sea. The braggadocio of enemies or spies cannot disturb our serenity. We may have some among us that we cannot count on--some "'nauti- cal experts,' perhaps--but there is no nation, or bully among the nations, that is able to dictate to us a shipping policy--not again. The day is at hand to regulate our commerce in favor of our own shipping, and it is going to be done, or the reason why not dis- covered. WitLtiam W. BATEs. ~ #See 'American Marine,'"' 1842, Houghton, Mifflin & Co. MR. J. J. HILL ON SHIPPING. Mr. J. J. Hill of the Great Northern Railway continues his opposition to any aid to shipping, not realizing that his great railway system came into being through the bounty of the federal government. Were not the enormous stretches of land, which were given to aid in the construction of his railway system, a form of subsidy? Would his railway have been built without this governmental] aid? He forgets that he was the recipient of favors whose influence he would seek to despise. This is what he says of aid to shipping: "I do not care what the bonus is, if you have not got the business you had better run your steamer to the bank and tie it up. It is business you want and not bonus. Today nobody in this country wants to own or operate ships unless he can make a connection between the ship and the United States treasury, and that kind of a merchant marine will be of no value to you or anybody else. After the civil war our merchant marine was dis- persed and driven under other flags. The energy of the coun- try and the capital of the country were devoted to exploiting the : west, the new country. There is not a letter on the statute books applying to ships sailing on the high seas that is not abso- lutely framed against the ships. You hire sailors, firemen, any- body you. can engage for a 'voyage, but they can quit you any- where, leave you, and you have got to pay them to the last min- ute and you can help yourself in any way you can. All other nations enforce a contract. We do not. If we hire American sailors we have to pay, on the Pacific, the union price, $30 a month, and $36 for firemen. The other ships hire Lascars, Jap- anese and pay them $5 a month in Mexican silver, and instead of $36 they pay $6 in silver for firemen. They are good sailors and they are good, hard working men; and they do the work. There are some American-built ships, nominally under the Amer- ican flag--and it is a beautiful flag that we all reverence and love--but what has the American ship got to do? She has to land at Victoria and put off two-thirds of her crew, keep them there, and she has to pay for their keep, until she goes down to the American harbor, delivers her cargo and takes on another, and go back and land and take on her foreign sailors, and then go about her business. That is what she has got to do." Preliminary surveys for the enlargement of the Erie ca- nal were begun a few days ago. Surveys were undertaken in the Fort Bull, Oneida, Savannah, Tonawanda, Rochester and Me- dina districts. State Engineer Bond says that actual construction will not be begun until next May, so that there will be no issue of bonds until then. An Ottawa dispatch says that an order in council has been passed appointing J. F. Frazer to be commissioner of lights of Dominion government. Mr. Frazer will have charge of the op- erating and maintenance of the aids to navigation and of the installation of all illuminating apparatus.