The three steamships of the Oceanic Line formerly plying to Australia were then laid up in the harbour of San Francisco, being unable, although subsidised for mails by the United States Government, to compete with foreign vessels. There were, however, three United States steamers plying from Puget Sound to Japan and China, occasionally reaching the Philippines.
The mails from New York and the other Atlantic ports of the United States to Brazil and the Argentine go viâ Europe, so that in this important matter New York is actually 3,000 miles further than Europe, instead of being 370 miles nearer to those countries.[35]
[35] Senator Gallinger, loc. cit.
In the same debate Senator Depew said that ships receiving the United States mail subsidy, the only form of subsidy given, have to be American built, manned by Americans, and the diet of the sailors as prescribed by law. He added that—
"The labour unions have rightly and properly taken care of their wages. The result is that the cost in wages and food to run American ships under American conditions across the Pacific is double that of European or Japanese steamers."
The relative cost of operating American and European vessels was given by the Hon. Elihu Root, Secretary of State, in an address delivered November 30, 1906,[36] as follows:—
The operation of an American steamship of 2,500 tons costs $18,289 per annum more than that of a British ship of this tonnage, or $7.31 more per ton; and
The operation of an American steamship of 3,500 tons costs $15,315 per annum more than that of a German ship of the same size, or $4.37 more per ton.
[36] Address to Mississippi Commercial Congress, Kansas City, revised by Mr. Root and published Nat. Geogr. Mag., 1907, vol. xviii. pp. 61-72.
Thus it is evident that, in spite of geographical advantages, there are at present some grounds for the extreme opinion sometimes expressed in the United States that the Canal is being built with American money for the use of Europe—and, one may add, of Japan.