It is this moral effect of the existence of an armed force which prevents many robberies being committed on shore, and it is the same with the ocean.
Without an armed force on the ocean to protect cargoes in time of peace the temptation to become suddenly rich, and without any one knowing how, would be too great to be resisted. The navy is the police of the seas, and one class of property should be protected just as much as another. Shipping is entitled to the same treatment and care as any other form of invested capital.
Acknowledging then that it is the existence of war vessels on the seas that prevents piracy and insures the safety of our cargoes of grain and beef, and other articles in their transit across the ocean, and that a navy in this way protects commerce in time of peace, then, is it just that ONE nation should bear all the expense of keeping up a sufficient show of force in the shape of a navy to prevent the return of the pirates? All nations who have property on the ocean, or ships carrying cargoes from port to port, must aid in thus protecting the seas in proportion to the value of property sailing the ocean. And the maritime powers of the world must assist each other against the common enemy, just as the police of one country assist those of another in procuring and bringing to justice the extraditional criminals.
It is not right or just for a country to have a merchant marine without a corresponding navy to protect it; it is unjust to other nations, and we have the second largest merchant marine in the world, and hardly rank as fifth as a naval power.
The country in time of peace, in the early stages of its existence, when our navy was as large in proportion to the inhabitants as it is now, had practically merchant ship after merchant ship seized, not by individuals, but by nations which possessed more powerful navies, and the number of ships so seized by France alone counts up in the hundreds, and France is a friend of the United States if we have one in Europe.
It seems to be natural that the unprotected should be imposed upon. Wherever we glance throughout nature we find the mighty preying upon the weak, and even in the very plants the weaker are crowded out and must give way to the stronger. This is true of men, and it is likewise true of nations. For a proof consider the number of nations England has crowded out. We, too, have crowded out the Indian.
I suppose the Bey of Tunis would still be imposing upon our merchants in the Mediterranean if we had not aroused ourselves and shown him what a naval force could do, and made him respect it.
Many Americans engaged in commerce are temporarily resident abroad, and although they may be most law abiding, there still occur times when they are imposed upon, and in some cases incarcerated or maltreated, even murdered. The government owes these men protection. It is the solemn duty of the government to see that they are justly treated; and this can be done, in many cases, in no better way than by a show of force. One small gunboat in a port where one of our fellow citizens has been imposed upon will do more toward setting him right than thousands of appealing or of threatening words from a distance. There are hundreds of instances on record in the Navy and State Departments which might be cited in illustration of this, but the following will serve the purpose. They are taken from recent editions of the Washington National Republican:
In the spring of 1858 the United States steamer “Fulton,” mounting six guns, was cruising in the West Indies. Information reached the commander that a revolution had broken out at Tampico; that the town was besieged, and that American merchant vessels were detained in the river. The “Fulton” proceeded with all despatch to Tampico, and found affairs as had been reported.
Tampico is situated six miles up the river of that name. The revolutionary and besieging party was within three miles of the city, and had established a custom house at the mouth of the river. Five American merchant vessels were in the river at the time. They had paid the necessary custom house dues at Tampico, and started down the river to proceed to sea. Upon approaching the mouth of the river they were directed to anchor until they had paid additional custom house dues. To this, of course, the American captains positively refused, as they had already paid the necessary legal dues. Consequently the vessels were detained under the guns of the besieging party, and had not the United States steamer “Fulton” made her appearance they would continue to have been detained. The commander of the “Fulton” demanded their instant release, which was complied with, and the vessels proceeded to sea accordingly.