[To THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTATOR." J
Austin Taylor's second letter. It is well, perhaps, to dismiss irrelevant matter, and to recall attention to the question at issue. Mr. Taylor's first letter was an endeavour to show that Protection had "killed American shipbuilding." My answer was, in effect, that Protection had nothing whatever to do with it; and I endeavoured to show that the real difficulties which tended to make shipbuilding more costly in the United States than in this country were not those suggested by Mr. Taylor. I pointed out (not upon my own authority, but upon that of people in the trade) that American shipbuilding was handi- capped, to some extent by higher wages, but principally by climate, which, especially during the extreme cold of winter, operated as a hindrance to iron and steel shipbuilding work in the open. I also pointed out that the American shipbuilder practically enjoyed the blessings of Free-trade, inasmuch as all shipbuilding materials were admitted duty free. In support of this contention I give you the following extract from the United States Tariff Act, Section 12 :—
" That all materials of foreign production which may be neces- sary for the construction of vessels built in the United States for foreign account and ownership, or for the purpose of being employed in the foreign trade, including the trade between the Atlantic and Pacific ports of the United States, and all such materials necessary for the building of their machinery and all articles necessary for their outfit and equipment, may be im- ported in bond under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe ; and upon proof that such materials have been used for such purposes no duties shall be paid thereon."
Therefore I think that as regards American shipbuilding Mr. Taylor's illustration of the iniquities of Protection is a most unfortunate one, inasmuch as that particular business—which he says has been killed by Protection—happens to be carried
on, so far as concerns actual ship construction, under Free- trade conditions. It is precisely under these Free-trade conditions, plainly indicated by his exemption from Custom import-duties, that the American shipbuilder is unable successfully to compete as to price with the shipbuilders of this country. But when you come to shipowning it is a dif- ferent matter. Here Protection steps in, not to kill American shipbuilding, but to help the American shipbuilder. It is by reason of such Protection as affecting the shipowner that I argued, and I think not unreasonably, that without Protection American shipbuilding would scarcely exist, because, as appears to me, the American shipowner would not build at home, even for the coasting trade, if he were able to purchase more cheaply abroad. He could, undoubtedly, purchase more cheaply abroad if he were free to do so ; but the American shipowner, as everybody knows, is debarred from purchasing abroad because ships built abroad are not entitled to American registry ; and it is for these reasons that I do not think a Protective system which obliges our American friends to build their vessels in the United States can truly be said to have killed shipbuilding in that country. I have been referring throughout to shipbuilding in iron and steel. In the old days of wooden shipbuilding, when the American flag was to be seen upon every sea, our friends across the Atlantic were Protectionists, as they are to-day, and their shipping prospered. They had great natural advantages in regard to cheap timber ; but with the advent of other shipbuilding material the American shipbuilder had to face altered con- ditions.--I am, Sir, &c., DA.VID MACIVER,
[If Mr. Austin Taylor desires to deal with any matter of
fact in this letter, we shall be glad to afford him space to do so, but such communication must be the last in this corre- spondence. For ourselves, we can only say that when we find that Protectionist America cannot compete with Free-trade Britain in shipbuilding, though America has such an immense product of steel, iron, and timber, we are at a loss to know what it is, if it is not Protection, which so terribly handicaps the American shipbuilder. Mr. MacIver will, we trust, pardon us if we cannot take his climatic excuse seriously. Even if the Eastern States have an unsuitable climate, which, however, we cannot admit, there are hundreds of places on the vast coast-line, Atlantic and Pacific, of America with ideal climates for out-of-door work.—En. Spectator.]
THE SIZE OF PERCH.
Previous page
