A Modern Clipper Ship and a Modern Brig
By courtesy of Munsey's Magazine
When American ships were supreme they were insured at a less rate than those of any other nation, and the insurance was placed, to a large extent, in England. Because the American sailor of the sail, who had been evolved by 200 years of American environment, was able to handle his ship better than any other, he paid lower premiums to the underwriters. But if this be true (and no one disputes it), it follows that the higher percentage of losses among modern American steamers proves that the American environment, since the steamer era, has produced a steamship sailor who is less efficient in his work than our old-time sailor of the sail was in his, and less efficient, too, than the foreign steamship sailor of the present day. It is an important fact that a man may win laurels upon the weather yard-arm in reefing topsails and yet be of no particular value as an oiler or an assistant engineer in the engine-room. At any rate, any effort to revive the American merchant marine will have to be made in the face of the record of American losses, and the influence of that record upon insurance rates.
Then in spite of the "boundless resources of our country," and "the intelligence of the masses," and a "protective tariff" of twenty-five cents a bushel, the farmers of "the overcrowded nations of Europe" are able to sell potatoes in New York at a profit. And millions of dollars' worth of factory goods made in Europe pay ocean freights, pay the tariff tax, pay the commissions of agents, pay the freight rates on our railroads, pay the margin of our retail merchants, and are then sold at our doors in competition with the products of our workmen.
The fact that the tariff wall fails to keep out foreign goods is a matter for serious attention in every point of view, but it seems especially necessary here to consider the influence of "protection," as it is called, upon those features of American character which we call self-reliance and the spirit of enterprise. Under the prevailing system how is it possible for the American people to develop the aggressive manhood that is needed?
One other feature of the opposition that will be encountered in any effort to create a new American merchant marine is yet to be described—the support which the existing carriers will receive from their governments during the conflict; but before that is considered it may be well to review the means by which it has been proposed to increase our shipping.
Naturally a people accustomed to "protection"—a people who make boast of a system that is at best a confession of a lack of ability to meet open competition—have turned, first of all, to "government aid."
Among the first provisions of Congress for the benefit of American shipping after the adoption of the Constitution was a 10 per cent discriminating duty on all goods imported in foreign ships. It is asserted that this discriminating duty supplied our ships with cargoes from foreign ports to American, and was thus a feasible and satisfactory "protection." A 10 per cent duty amounted then, and it would amount now, to more than the whole freight, upon some goods. It is also asserted that this discrimination was made in order to "protect" our shipping. But in an extended argument, which was made before the Merchant Marine Commission (in the Report of which the curious reader can find it), by Hon. E. T. Chamberlain, Commissioner of Navigation, it was proved that "in the minds of those that applied" it (Jefferson, Clay, Gallatin, John Quincy Adams, etc.), the law was provided as a means of retaliation only—for the purpose of preventing discrimination against American shipping. The fact that our government anxiously strove from the first to secure fair reciprocity confirms this view. Further confirmation is found in the fact that our old-time ship-owners were unanimous in their support of the government in its efforts to secure reciprocity.
Those who advocate the policy of discrimination for modern application assert that our shipping reached supremacy at sea while the discriminating policy prevailed as to Great Britain, and that is true, because the British did not accept our offers of reciprocity until 1849. But the assertion that our shipping became supreme because of this policy is made only by those who are unable to appreciate in full the facts of the case. For our ships that were engaged in the trades between foreign countries, beyond the reach of any "protection" afforded by "discrimination" or any other artificial stimulation, at one time measured a million tons. Why were those ships favored beyond all others by the merchants who loaded them? Why did merchants of rival nations—why did the British merchants, for instance—charter these "Yankee" ships, if it were not because they were the most efficient in the world?
It is a slander upon the American sailor of the sail to say that he won the long pennant through coddling.