HE discussion carried on in this series of articles has drifted at times into particular matters, but in the present paper it is purposed to return to the general subject and give once more facts and figures that emphasize necessity for the agitation.

The merchant navy, like the military navy of a nation appeals to the patriotism of the people; it is more useful in times of peace and quite as necessary in the event of war, being the citizen naval reserve, and should be fostered by the solicitous guardianship of the government.

One of the most effective enemies of the American merchant marine engaged in foreign commerce and one of the best friends of our foreign rivals on the ocean has been unwise and unpatriotic legislation; both of commission and omission. Such, for instance, as the failure of Congress to pass national pilotage laws, discriminating duty laws, etc., and the acts of the State legislatures in passing such commerce-killing bills as the present California pilot monopoly laws.

Much has been written and printed during recent years regarding the deplorable condition of the American merchant marine in comparison with the merchant marine of other nations, and it may be well to go into history a little and ascertain for ourselves what foundation there is for these humiliating stories.

This unfortunate situation is quite well emphasized by two newspaper clippings from recent publications, which I quote, as follows:

The Dirigo, which arrived at San Francisco, May 17, 1897, after such a long voyage that she was almost given up for lost, is the only American steel ship afloat.

One nation, one steel ship; comment would be superfluous on this statement; we need not read between the lines to realize its meaning.

Great Britain broke its record for shipbuilding in 1896, the number of tons launched being 1,326,822 as against 1,156,571 in 1895.

The great panic of 1857 practically paralyzed all industries in the United States for some time, and from 1857 to 1864, covering three years of war, there was a decided falling off, but the worst of those years was 1859, when we built 870 vessels of a tonnage of 156,602 or just 45,000 tons and nearly 200 vessels more than were built in 1895, although our coastwise and lake trade has been greatly developed in the meantime.

The number of vessels, 694, built in 1895, was the smallest number for any year since 1843, when 483 vessels were built, previous to which there was but one year so poor as 1895 since 1824. In 1799, there were built in the United States 767 vessels; in 1800, 995 vessels; in 1815, we built 1329, and in 1824, 1421.

The tonnage of American vessels built in 1895 was largely exceeded in 1801, 1805, 1806, 1811, 1815, 1816, 1825, 1826, 1832, 1833, 1834, and was never so small, with two notable exceptions (1843-44) from 1836

to 1886, a period of fifty years. True it has not been quite so small any other year latterly, but in making comparisons we must bear in mind the startling fact that our population, wealth, productions, and industries, have increased enormously, and that the commerce of the world has been multiplied several times since 1801, when our ship-building amounted to 125,744 tons as compared with 111,602 tons in 1895; and that, therefore, in this one great and important industry we have not kept pace with the procession. We not only for many years built sufficient ships to carry ninety per cent of our exports and imports, but we built ships to sell.

In 1862 we sold to foreigners, vessels of 111,756 tons, being more than the entire output of 1895, while in 1863, in the midst of our civil war, we sold 222,199 tons; in 1864 we sold 300,865 tons, and 133,832 tons in 1865, while in 1895 we sold only 13,994 tons. The story to the effect that our shipbuilding industry has not grown with the development of the country seems tolerably well authenticated by these figures, and if it were not for the demands of our coastwise and lake trade, we should have no use for shipbuilding plants at all. "Our friends, the enemy," could do it all and draw on us for the cost.

Another interesting comparison will be found in the American tonnage engaged in foreign trade; that is the trade between the United States and foreign countries. This had increased steadily from 1789, under a discriminating duty act, until in 1810 the vessels thus engaged, registered 981,019 tons while in 1896 this had been reduced to 829,833, although it had grown with the development of the country down to 1861, when it reached the respectable proportions of 2,496,894 tons, or nearly three times what it is at present.

This falling off is variously accounted for by different people. Some charging it to the civil war (1861-65), during which period our shipbuilding industry was large and thrifty, while others say it is caused by a condition of general business depression, although from 1865, when the war closed, to 1890 the growth and progress, the general prosperity and the interior development, of this country were the greatest in its history, or in any twenty-five years of the history of any nation. Still others explain that, "steel

ships are rapidly displacing wooden ones and we cannot build steel ships in competition with Great Britain because material is cheaper in Europe." This ground I will cover in a future article. It is untenable. True, the influence of the war, while it lasted, was hard on our foreign shipping, but at the close of that war we had 1,518,350 tons thus engaged, and with the renewed energy through which all other industries thrived commerce would have done the same had it been properly fostered and protected. But during these years, from 1865 to 1890, the American merchant marine engaged in foreign trade decreased steadily and with very slight variations, uninterruptedly, although "the war was over," there being 3,067 vessels of 1,487,246 tons capacity engaged in this trade in 1868, three years after the close of the war, which was more than we had in 1864, while there were only 1451 vessels of 928,062 tons thus engaged in 1890, which was still further reduced to 1193 vessels of 829,833 tons in 1896. The cheap labor world was invited to compete for this business on free trade lines and you have the result.

During all this time the tonnage of foreign vessels engaged in the business of carrying the exports and imports of the United States has constantly increased in like proportions. Then again, and as a clinching argument that protective legislation exerts a wonderful influence for good, the number and particularly the capacity of vessels engaged in our coastwise trade, which by law must be American, has shown an almost continuous increase all these years, being larger now than ever before. For instance, the tonnage thus engaged has varied as follows: in 1789 there were 68,607 tons; in 1810 this had grown to 405,347; in 1838 it reached 1,041,105; in 1852 another million mark was passed, when it amounted to 2,055,873 tons, while from 1852 to 1864, including the terrible war period, still another million tons were added, the total being then 3,245,265 tons. In 1874 we had 27,659 vessels of 3,293,439 tons, which had increased in 1890 to 3,409,435 tons, and in 1896, to 3,790,296 tons engaged in carrying our own goods to our own people, as compared with 829,833 used to transport our goods to and purchases from foreign people.

While our vessels engaged in foreign

Observe that from 1844 to and including 1857 American vessels carried from two to three times as much of our exports and imports as foreign vessels, and from seventy and a half to seventy-eight and a half per cent of the whole, but that since the latter date the proportions have so far reversed that for the last fifteen years foreign vessels carried each year about a thousand million dollars worth more than the American vessels, and in 1895 carried eighty-nine and three-tenths per cent of the total exports and imports, or nearly eight times as much as our American vessels. A few moments' calculation will suffice to figure out how long it will be under this system of progress until American vessels carry nothing in our foreign trade, and all of our freight money will go across the seas, as the bulk of it does now. "What fools these mortals be!"

Again, our entire merchant marine as compared with that of Great Britain, makes this exhibit as per statistics furnished by our national Commissioner of Navigation in 1896:

1893.

.4,424,497 .4,825,071

66

66

6,574,513 7,430,045 7,978,538 8,778,503

46

66

As heretofore shown, the bulk of the American tonnage is engaged in trading among the States; that is, in 1893 there were 3,854,693 tons thus occupied out of a total of 4,825,071 tons, while the great majority of British tonnage was and is used in foreign trade. So that the ever increasing disparity is particularly noticeable when viewed in the light of competition. It will be observed that the above table shows that in 1860 the total American merchant marine tonnage exceeded that of Great Britain by about seven hundred thousand tons, while the latter nation is nearly four million tons ahead in 1893 on total tonnage, and probably eight million tons in the lead in the over-the-ocean commerce. But a still later authority, Lloyd's Register for 1896-97, gives the number and tonnage of vessels over one hundred tons of the two nations as follows: Great Britain 11,329 vessels of 13,359,026 tons; United States 3,215 vessels, 2,234,725 tons. We pay to foreign shipowners approximately three hundred million dollars each year for freights and passage money that should go to our own people. This is a drain that only a nation of inexhaustible resources could withstand. Were it not for our laws prohibiting foreign vessels from engaging in coastwise trade, it is safe to say that the total tonnage of American vessels afloat today would not be more than one third or one quarter what it is, and might be still less.

What better demonstration can be given of the efficacy of helpful legislation? Commerce has for centuries been assisted by governments either by subsidies, bounties, tax exemptions, discriminating duties, or prohibitive laws, and the fear of retaliation on the part of other countries has not prevented far-sighted statesmen from adopting measures that would build up and strengthen this bulwark of national prosperity, power, and greatness. Importers of foreign goods were not and are not permitted by these patriotic and wise statesmen to dictate legislation that shall favor the laborer and manufacturer and the ship-owner of foreign coun

tries to the permanent detriment of home industry and the disgrace and humiliation of the home government. This has been and is being done in the United States, be it said to the shame of our Congress. Our flag, to be the exemplar of our present national pride as evidenced by our legislation on the subject of commerce, should fly big dollars in the place of stars and stripes, and as a showing of our commercial foresight in international dealings might carry the motto, "Penny wise, pound foolish." We hold the dollar so close to our vision that it completely hides from our view the patriotism that makes and saves a nation, and in our mad struggle for material wealth we chase the penny till it looks like a pound, and in our self-emulation cry out to the laughing world, "What wise men are we."

Suppose we should adopt a discriminating duty act that would permit American vessels to carry all of our imports; this would certainly be a great benefit; for we are not now carrying over twelve to fifteen per cent of these imports. If other nations retaliate to such an extent that we cannot afford to carry our own exports at all, we shall lose eight per cent of the export business, being the amount we are now permitted to carry; and on the other hand we will gain at least eighty-five per cent of the import carrying business, being the portion that we do not now have. As our exports and imports are about of equal proportions, say $750,000,000 per year each, in round figures, the result would certainly be a great gain to American shipping, in addition to the immense stimulus it would afford the shipbuilding industry, which would employ thousands of workmen at hundreds of busy shipyards, and through the distribution of large sums of wage and material money extend its benefits to many thousands more. The business pulse of the whole nation would be stimulated into healthful activity, and we should be ourselves once more. The regeneration of American ocean commerce is the keynote to the general prosperity for which we are longing.

In 1793 the founder of a once great political party, one Thomas Jefferson, an honest man, Secretary of State of the United States,

wrote in an official report on our shipbuilding and our commerce with foreign nations:

"Its value, as a branch of industry, is enhanced by the dependence of so many other branches on it. .. But it is as a source of defense that our Navigation will admit neither negligence nor forbearance.

Those are the words of a patriot.

Jefferson favored (in theory) free trade in commerce, and yet on this point he said:

But if particular nations grasp at undue shares, and more especially, if they seize upon the means of the United States to convert them into aliment from the support of those to whom they belong, defensive and protective measures become necessary on the part of the nation whose marine resources are thus invaded; or it will be disarmed of its defense; its productions will be at the mercy of the nation which has possessed itself exclusively of the means of carrying them, and its politics may be influenced by those who command its commerce.

These were the warning words of a prophet.

Its politics may be influenced." Think deeply, reader. Do you suppose they have not been thus influenced?

If these closing years of the nineteenth century could only raise up a Jefferson as a leader, that Jefferson could not and would not in the light of a hundred years of practical experience favor free trade in commerce. But he would realize how prophetic were those last words quoted above, and how truthfully prophecy has been fulfilled by experience, in the history of our once. proud merchant marine, through the influence of short-sighted legislation and the making of "free-shipping reciprocity treaties" with foreign nations by which we gained nothing and lost much. The United States needs statesmen today, clear-headed, honest, patriotic statesmen without "a dollar in sight."

Some of the other enemies of American ocean commerce may be enumerated hereafter, the purpose of these object lessons. being to awaken if possible a true spirit of patriotism, which may manifest itself through the coming generations by the determination to fly the stars and stripes on every ocean, and vindicate those patriots of 1776 who gave us a nation and a flag.

Vol. Xxx-6

Y AUNT, Polly Divers, was a woman born to command. She was tall and angular, and had the voice of a general on the field of battle. It was well known throughout the community that she was "lord of the manor," and her household meekly obeyed her commands, including my Uncle Joe.

Uncle Joe was one of those good-natured, unselfish, free-and-easy going sort of men who always pitied where others condemned, and only some very important and sensational event could arouse his sluggish mind to action.

My relatives had been living on a farm in the State of Connecticut. Aunt Polly, it is needless to say, was the manager. On a pinch she could get out and dig potatoes, hoe beans, and even plow. More than once have I known her to handle a pitchfork with a dexterity that would cause the hired man to remark that, "There ain't no flies on your Aunt Polly."

One day at the dinner table she remarked: "Joseph, suppose we sell the farm and move to Kansas?"

That settled the matter; for, although Uncle Joe coaxed and argued, it was of no avail. Aunt Polly had got the "Western fever." Go she must, and go they did.

66

Joseph, I think this is a good place to locate," she said, as they halted at the county seat of one of the western Kansas counties, on their way.

Again Uncle Joe coaxed and argued. He wanted a farm. I believe Aunt Polly did ultimately intend to locate on a farm, but her keen eyes had noticed the tide of immigration, and she saw a future in the little city and a chance for speculation. She was firm in her convictions, and Uncle Joe, as usual, gave up and rented a cottage in the

heart of the town and dropped back into his free-and-easy style of living, while Aunt Polly watched and waited for a chance to make investments.

A few months after their arrival Uncle Joe was called upon by a delegation of his townsmen, who informed him that he had been selected as their party candidate for the office of sheriff.

Uncle Joe was the last person on earth who would have thought of taking such a nomination, and would have refused outright, but Aunt Polly was present, and accepted. Uncle Joe realized his inability to make a good sheriff in a section infested with horsethieves, murderers, and desperadoes of all descriptions, but Aunt Polly was firm, and in a week Uncle Joe was duly elected.

"Hank" Phillips, a giant in stature and a lion in strength, one of the bravest men I ever knew, had been deputy sheriff under the previous administration. He had a reputation well known to the law breakers. To him Uncle Joe went, at the advice, or rather command, of Aunt Polly, and tendered the office of deputy sheriff, and at the close of the day "Hank" was in possession of the jail. Being a single man, he, of course, became an inmate of the family.

Things went on smoothly after this, for Uncle Joe wisely took the advice of Phillips, and this, together with Aunt Polly's watchfulness, helped him out of many a difficult tangle.

The county, a new one, had very few good buildings, but the jail had been built almost regardless of cost. The supervisors were well aware of the class of men who would be confined therein, and had been lavish with the county funds. It was a stone structure, two stories in height, with a large wing for the jailer's family. The upper story was for boys and female prisoners, while the ground floor was intended for the