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

14 MARINE REVIEW. UNITED STATES THE LEADING EXPORT NATION. The United States now stands at the head of the world’s exporting nations. The complete figures for the calendar year 1900 when compared with those of other nations show that our exports of domestic products are greater than those of any other country. The total exports of domes- tic merchandise from the United States in the calendar year 1900 aggre- gated $1,453,013,659, those from the United Kingdom, which has hereto- fore led in the race for this distinction, $1,418,348,000, and those from Ger- many $1,050,611,000. Additional interest is given to the first rank, which the United States now holds as an exporting nation by the fact that a quarter of a century ago she stood fourth in that list. In 1875 the domes- tic exports of the United States were $497,263,737; those of Germany $607,096,000; those of France $747,489,000, and those of the United King- dom $1,087,497,000. Today the United States stands at the head of the list, the United Kingdom second, Germany third, and France fourth, with the figures as follows: United States, $1,453,013,659; United Kingdom, $1,413,348,000; Germany, $1,050,611,000; France, $787,060,000. All of these figures, it should be remembered, relate to the exports of domestic prod- ucts. Thus in the quarter century, the United States has increased her exports from $497,263,737 to $1,453,013,659, or 192 per cent.; Germany from $607,096,000 to $1,050,611,000, or 73 per cent.; the United Kingdom from $1,087,497,000 to $1,418,348,000, or 34 per cent., and France from $747,489,000 to $787,060,000, or 5 per cent. The following table, compiled from official reports, shows the exports of domestic merchandise from the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany in each calendar year from 1875 to 1900: Germany. Year. United States. United Kingdom. Their eae ane $497,263,737 $1,087,497,000 $607,096,000 TCI SFiass ese 575,735,804 976,410,000 619,919,000 erase, op aies 607,566,495 967,913,000 672,151,000 MBI Ge ve eek 723,286,821 938,500,000 702,513,000 3 oA egaebar ett 754,656,755 932,090,000 675,397,000 ISSO se S28 Si 875,564,075 1,085,521,000 741,202,000 | Neled bear aie eee 814,162,951 1,138,873,000 724,379,000 NBRO es svcus 749,911,309 1,175,099,000 776,228,000 TRS Reis. 777,523,718 1,166,982,000 796,208,000 TNCtSY Ri aert yes 733,768,764 1,184,016,000 779,832,000 RESO See sos 673,593,506 1,037,124,000 695,892,000 WSO: 2.545 6 699,519,430 1,035,226,000 726,471,000 NBR cea cs 703,319,692 1,079,944,000 762,897,000 NBSSt as 679,597,477 1,141,365,000 780,076,000 IOSOR et: 814,154,864 1,211,442,000 770,537,000 1BO0e Re ee 845,999,603 1,282,474,000 809,810,000 HS OM sud, 3 957,333,551 1,208,169,000 772,679,000 MBO 22a, 3 923,237,315 1,105,747,000 718,806,000 BOS he 854,729,454 1,062,162,000 753,361,000 OO es 807,312,116 1,051,193,000 720,607,000 HOOD aus 807,742,415 1,100,452,000 807,328,000 PO9G Bene 986,830,080 1,168,671,000 857,745,000 CNS OTe eee eS 1,079,834 296 1,139,882,000 884,486,000 MWBOB ed 1,233,564,828 1,135,642,000 894,063,000 TBOO ea siea. 1,253,466,000 1,287,971,039 1,001,278,000 1OOO ees. 1,453,013,659 1,418,348,000 1,050,611,000 FURNESS-WITHY LINER LOYALIST. The Furness-Withy line has just added two excellent vessels to its London, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick service. The vessels are the Loyalist and the Evangeline. The Loyalist has just undergone a trial trip when a speed of 15 knots was obtained. The vessels are of a beau- FURNESS-WITHY LINER LOYALIST. tiful, yacht-like appearance and are decidedly in advance of anything en- gaged at present in that trade. The dimensions of both are 383 ft. by 45 ft. by 80%4 ft. and they have accommodations of handsome design for a large number of first and second-class passengers. Both vessels were built by Messrs. Alex. Stephen & Sons, Ltd., Linthouse, Glasgow. _ Two dry docks in course of construction at Liverpool will each ac- commodate the largest ships yet built or contemplated and have plenty of room to spare. The Canada dock, almost ready for use, is 925 ft. 6 in. in length, 124 ft. 2 in. wide at the top and 94 ft. wide at the bottom, The entrance is 94 ft. in width and carries 32 ft. of water over the sill. The material is Portland cement and concrete in parts of eight to one, finished with parts of six to one. The dock has three centrifugal pumps, capable of discharging 3,500,000 cub. ft. of water in 1% hours, The second dock is 1,000 ft. in length, with 95 ft. width of entrance, and will have 37 ft. depth of water over the sill. [February 28, BRITISH VIEW OF OUR SHIPPING QUESTION. Fairplay of London, always intensely. British and continually dis- turbed by American progress in foreign trade, prints the following com- ment on an article by Charles H. Cramp in the Daily Mail regarding shipping législation in this country: “That eminent American ship builder, Mr. Charles H. Cramp, has written a long letter, which recently appeared in the Daily Mail. The let- ter as a whole requires no particular comment, but one paragraph shows either the existence of a misconception in the mind of the writer, or of a desire, which I am quite sure does not exist, to mislead the ubiquitous readers of the Mail. In the course of the letter appears the following: ‘I have said that the civil war was a misfortune to American ship builders. That war annihilated our commercial fleet, both in sail and steam. Some of these ships were bought by our own government; others were de- stroyed by those in arms against it. The remainder were transferred to foreign flags. At the end of the war the business of owning and operating ships in this country had passed away and no effort was made to revive it. Our ocean carrying trade had gone into other hands, and there was no demand for new ships, for the reason that no one cared to undertake the risk of the shipping business under the conditions then obtaining. To make a bad matter worse, our government adopted the policy of doing its own naval work. In addition to this, all legislation for the first ten years after the war was adverse to American shipping interests, and therefore favorable to the interests of foreign ship owners.’ “This would imply that the disappearance of the American flag from the oversea trade was due to incidents connected with the civil war. So far as the capture of some few American ships was concerned, the col- lapse of the American shipping trade might have been precipitated to that extent; but Mr. Cramp forgets to state, what I am sure he must very well know, that the American war synchronized with the introduction of steam, and particularly of iron vessels into the sea-going trade. The change from sail to steam began to assume a marked development at about that period. Iron cargo steamers were found more profitable than wooden sailing ships, and the American trade at that time was carried on entirely by the latter class of vessels. But if iron steamers were to be used to supersede sailers, they had to be procured from where they could be produced, and at that period of the world’s history the only country capable of turning out vessels of that class was our own. As a matter of fact Great Britain, which at this moment still holds an immense su- premacy in respect of the cheap and rapid construction of iron and steel steamers, was at that time the sole builder of such vessels. America has lately gone into that line of business, with, I am afraid I must say, not very marked success from a financial point of view. At any rate the whole outturn of American ship building for the foreign trade, as contrasted with that of our own country, is ridiculously small, and more than one generation must pass before American ship building appliances can be sufficiently developed to place that country in the rank of a dangerous competitor in iron and steel ship building with this country. “The American coasting trade, an enormous:trade, is as completely in the hands of our cousins over the water as ever it was; neither from all that I can see is their supremacy in that respect likely to be interfered with, because, having a monopoly, they are just the sort of people to keep it. But to retain a monopoly already possessed is a very different thing from attacking a monopoly in the hands of others, and this is the task on which Mr. Cramp would appear to propose to enter with a light heart. That he should wish to do so is natural, because, as a ship builder, he would be developing his own business; but the question is whether the comparatively limited profits which are derived from ship building, and especially from ship owning, will be sufficient to satisfy American capital- ists, who hitherto have found more advantageous outlets for their money. The ship builders who have made large fortunes in this country in the course of something like two generations can be counted on the fingers of both hands, while those who have found the money for the ships woud in a vast number of cases have done better if they had invested in consols. This is a side of the question with which Mr. Cramp at present has not dealt. It is quite true that he contemplates a state subvention, but it re- mains to be seen whether the American taxpayers will be willing to accept the burden to be imposed on them.” HISTORY OF THE SUNKEN RIO DE JANEIRO. The steamer Rio de Janeiro, which was wrecked by endeavoring to enter San Francisco harbor during a fog, was one of a fleet of Pacific Mail steamships built at Roach’s ship yard, Chester, Pa., although she was not contracted for by the Pacific company at the time of her build- ing. In 1877 the late John Roach conceived the idea that a fleet of first- class American ships running to South American ports would build up American trade in that section and prove a profitable investment, and he organized a company among his friends and built and equipped two fine ships for the trade as his share of the capitalization. It was believed that congress would aid the enterprise by giving the line a subsidy for carrying the mail, and the new ships Rio de Janeiro and City of Para were built for the service. . The Rio de Janeiro was launched on March 6, 1878, and just one month later, on April 6, the City of Para was launched. This was a great occasion in ‘Chester, and President Hayes and several members of his cabinet were present as the guests of the veteran ship builder. President Hayes stood on the deck: of the Rio de Janeiro, and from this point of vantage saw the Para slide down the ways. In speaking of the loss of the on! de Janeiro, John B. Roach, president of the ship building company, said: _ “The rapid sinking of the ship was due to the fact that she was not built as modern ships are, with water tight bulkheads dividing the vessel into comparatively small compartments. At the time the Rio was built’ this practice of insuring the safety of vessels had not been developed as it is today. The Rio was a stanch and steady ship, splendidly con- structed, and had proved her seaworthiness in a dozen typhoons, but the lack of water tight bulkheads was a fatal defect in case the ship struck a reef which tore a large hole in her.” : The question of submarines has occupied the attention of the British admiralty for some time. The first lord of the admiralty will make a statement on the subject to the house of commons in a short time.