Foreign Commerce in 1865—The “Clyde” and “George W. Clyde,” and Introduction of Compound Engines—Commerce of 1870—Merchant Marine—Lynch Committee—Mr. Cramp and Committee—Lynch Bill—American Steamship Company—Visit to British Shipyards—John Elder—British Methods—Interchange of Methods—Merchant Marine continued—Dingley Bill—Defects—Act of 1891, Providing Registry for Foreign Ships—“St. Louis” and “St. Paul”—Extract from Forum—Remarks on Article—Committee of Ship-builders and Owners—New Bill Introduced by Frye and Dingley—North Atlantic Traffic Association—New Ship-yards—Tactics of North Atlantic Traffic Association—Our Navigation Laws, North American Review—Mr. Whitney—Unfriendly Legislation—Mr. Whitney’s Letter—Effects of Letter—Mr. Cramp’s Letter to Committee of Merchant Marine—International Mercantile Marine.
The return of peace in 1865 found the country without sea-commerce either coastwise or foreign. Such ships as had not been taken up by the government had, with the exception of a few whaling-vessels in the Pacific Ocean, been transferred to foreign flags to save them from the ravages of Confederate pirates or cruisers which, to all intents and purposes, so far as construction, armament, equipment, 100and crews were concerned, were nothing but British privateers in disguise. In the mean time England had taken every advantage of the situation, and by 1865 had practically absorbed all the magnificent ocean-carrying trade which the United States enjoyed prior to 1860. American ship-building was at a stand-still. The government at once threw upon the market all the ships which it had taken up for gun-boats, auxiliary cruisers, transports, etc., during the war. They were sold for anything that they would bring, and they were bought up as a speculation by new companies unfamiliar with the shipping business, and as a consequence they all failed. The ships were obsolete or worn out and soon passed out of existence. Certain coastwise lines continued to do a small business, but little or no attempt was made to restore our foreign trade; first, because none of the vessels which the government threw on the market were in a condition to undertake it; and, second, because, in consequence of the inflated prices of everything, any attempt to compete either in seafaring labor or material with England would have been absurd. Besides this, the whole energy and capital of the country were immediately directed to an extraordinary expansion of railway systems, so that the attention of the people 101was entirely diverted from the sea and fixed upon the interior. For the next five or six years little or no ship-building of any description was done anywhere in the United States.
It was at this time that the Cramp Company considered it indispensable to attach engine building to the construction of hulls, as no satisfactory arrangement could be made to secure accurate performance that involved two independent and diverse handicrafts in the undertaking. They secured the services as engineer of Mr. J. Shields Wilson, whose training in the I. P. Morris Company, and at Neafie & Levy’s works had demonstrated his fitness for the post, and as to whose methods they were familiar.
One of the first achievements of the new enterprise was the design and construction of the compound engines for the “George W. Clyde,” finished in the spring of 1872, the first present accepted type of compound marine engines built in America. Immediately following them in 1873 and 1874 were the four ships for the American Line, the “Pennsylvania,” “Ohio,” “Indiana,” and “Illinois.”
The “George W. Clyde” was built for Thomas Clyde, who was the first ship-owner to introduce screw propulsion in ocean commerce 102in the United States by building the twin-screw steamship, the “John S. McKim,” built in 1844, which he used in the trade of the Gulf of Mexico and as a transport when the war with Mexico occurred.
Having built the first screw steamship, the “John S. McKim,” and the first steamship with compound engines, the “George W. Clyde,” Mr. Clyde responded with alacrity to the recommendations of Mr. Cramp in favor of the use of the triple-expansion engines by building the “Cherokee.”
The “Mascott” for Mr. Plant was built at the same time.
Mr. Clyde had formed the acquaintance of Mr. Ericsson soon after his arrival in this country in 1839, just before the “John S. McKim” was constructed, and became an early convert to his fascinations in exploiting the superior merits of screw propulsions over every other.
The “John S. McKim” and engines were designed by Mr. Ericsson, and built near Front and Brown Streets, Philadelphia.
Mr. Jacob Neafie, of Reaney, Neafie & Co., celebrated engine builders, who began business soon after by constructing propeller engines, had considerable practical experience in the construction of the “John S. McKim’s” engines 103before Reaney, Neafie & Co. had started business.
Mr. Ericsson had early secured the friendship of Commodore Stockton, and had a boat built for towing purposes by the celebrated ship-builders Lairds, of Berkenhead, called the “R. F. Stockton.” Commodore Stockton had been already biased in favor of screw propulsion on account of the invention of the screw propeller as it practically exists to-day by John Stevens in 1803. Mr. Stevens was the head and front of the organization of the bay, river, and canal navigation between the two great cities of New York and Philadelphia, of which Commodore Stockton was a member.
The successful introduction of screw propulsion in the United States was certainly owing to the combined efforts of Stevens, Ericsson, and Clyde.
Mr. Clyde was always to the front where new improvements were to be made.
The Cramp Company, having taken the lead in these new departures in engine construction at the beginning, have continued to remain there. They have ceased to construct wooden vessels, sail or steam, since the construction of the “Clyde,” of iron. This vessel was for Mr. Thomas Clyde, and preceded the “G. W. Clyde.”
104By 1870 the deplorable state of the American merchant marine attracted the attention of the Administration and Congress. The House of Representatives organized a select committee to investigate the causes of its decline, with instructions to submit in its report suggestion or recommendation of remedy. This is known in Congressional history as the “Lynch Committee,” from its Chairman, the Honorable John R. Lynch, Member of Congress, of Maine. This committee surveyed the situation exhaustively, taking the statements of a large number of ship-owners and ship-builders, and while there was considerable divergence of views as to the sum-total of causes, there was little or no diversity of opinion as to the most immediate and effective remedy.
This committee, after thorough investigation and mature deliberation, reported that, in view of the policy of foreign maritime nations, particularly Great Britain, in the way of subsidies and other methods of aiding and promoting their merchant marines, it would be impossible for American ship-owners to compete with them in the absence of similar expedients on the part of our own government. In other words, the Lynch Committee reported in effect that the primary requisite toward a resurrection of the American merchant marine 105would be the adoption of a policy of subvention, or, as it is commonly termed, subsidy.
However, while the Lynch Committee was logical in its suggestion or recommendation of remedy, its investigations, so far as the sum-total of the causes of decline were concerned, and its estimate of those causes were incomplete and inconclusive, because it started out with the dogma that the then existing depression of the merchant marine was due wholly to the ravages of the war; and it did not take into account the correlative or co-operative facts of the situation, which were much broader and deeper in their application and effect than the mere suspension or destruction of our merchant marine by the war itself. In other words, the Lynch Committee failed to grasp or appreciate the fact that, while the war was wrecking our sea-going commerce, foreign maritime powers, and particularly the English, were making the most gigantic efforts not only to take the place of our ruined trade, but also to provide for a perpetuity of the substitution, so that at any time between the close of the war and the investigations of the Lynch Committee it had become impossible for an American ship-owner to operate a ship or a line of ships in any route of ocean traffic. By means of liberal subsidies under the guise of 106mail pay, the British had in the interim covered every sea-road and appropriated every channel of ocean commerce. This fact the Lynch Committee seems to have ignored, although it was really the prime factor in the situation, as it stood in 1870. Mr. Cramp, in his statement before the Lynch Committee, went altogether out of the beaten path pursued by most of the other ship-builders or ship-owners who appeared. He said in effect that while the Civil War had been an immediate cause of the destruction of our merchant marine as it existed at the beginning of that struggle, still that was purely a physical cause, and in the absence of other causes need not operate after the war ended.
He called attention to the fact that the war had now been ended five years, but that the condition of our merchant marine, particularly in foreign trade, remained as pitiable as it had been in the height of the struggle. This he said argued the existence of other and more lasting causes than the simple destruction by war, whether by the government taking up our merchant-ships for its own use, or by the transfer of a great many of them to foreign flags to get the benefit of neutrality, or by the actual depredations of Anglo-Confederate privateers.
107He explained that during our misfortune the English took every advantage in the way of appropriating to themselves and to their own ships the traffic which our ships had formerly carried; that when the war closed, they had absolute command of the ocean-carrying trade, our own as well as theirs.
He said that not only did the British government subsidize and otherwise aid their ships and ship-owners, but that they also brought to bear all the tremendous resources of their navy to help and encourage British ship-builders. Notwithstanding her enormous and well-equipped public dock-yards, the English government built a very large percentage of its hull construction in private shipyards, and not only that, but all their marine-engine work was let out by contract to private engine-builders, mainly independent establishments.
He stated that the result of this policy had been to develop the industry of marine engine building in Great Britain to a degree unknown anywhere else in the world.
On the contrary, our own government had done little for its navy since the war, and what little it had done had been carried out entirely in navy-yards.
This not only deprived private ship-building of the kind of aid and encouragement which 108England lavished upon her private shipyards and engine-shops, but the navy-yards themselves were a constant menace to the good order and content of mechanics working in private shipyards.
Moreover, he said that the same class of mechanics who, immediately prior to the war, worked for $1.75 a day, now (1870) demanded and received $3.00 to $3.50 a day; whereas ship-building wages remained the same in England as in 1860.
He warned the committee that the day of wooden ships, particularly steamships, was past, and that the iron ship had come to stay, not only in England but everywhere else in the world.
He said that to enable the business of building iron ships and heavy marine machinery to become firmly established in this country, a very large amount of manufacturing machinery must be supplied, and in view of the present outlook no one would invest any considerable amount of capital in that direction without assurance of some aid and encouragement from the government similar to that which England rendered to her ship-building industry.
He then dwelt at considerable length upon the demoralization among mechanics produced 109by the government’s policy in confining its naval construction to the navy-yards.
He reviewed briefly the struggle between the Cunard and Collins Lines prior to 1858, and showed conclusively that the downfall of the American Collins Line was due to the persistent and constantly increasing subsidies lavished by the British government upon the Cunard Line, which our government in 1858 met by withdrawing the Collins subsidy and giving them instead the sea and inland postage on mail matter actually carried. In this respect he said Congress indirectly came to the aid of the Cunard Line and helped it to overthrow the Collins Line. He hoped that the committee would give these particular facts their earnest attention. He said that they did not require deep or intricate investigation, because they were matters of common notoriety, known to everybody who was at all conversant with the commercial history of the country.
The admission of material for building iron ships free of duty, he said, would be an advantage, of course, and many believed that if our ship-builders could be relieved from the tariff and get their material free they could compete successfully with foreign builders; but the difference in wages was too great to be entirely overcome by the mere admission 110of materials duty free. As for materials, he would always prefer American iron for the construction of ships to foreign iron, provided it could be got at the same, or very nearly the same, price. There were many inconveniences, he said, attendant upon sending abroad for iron plates. He informed the committee that it was necessary to get the form of every plate and have it sketched before it was ordered, and if, after doing that, we must send abroad to have them made, very great inconvenience and delay would result.
This statement of Mr. Cramp before the Lynch Committee, of which the foregoing is only a synopsis, was really the key-note to all subsequent argument in favor of government aid to American ship-building and ship-owning. It presented the matter in a new light, or a light which was new in 1870.
ARMORED CRUISER BROOKLYN
It might be remarked here, in referring to his statement that “the form of every plate must be sketched before it is ordered, etc.,” that Mr. Cramp himself was the originator of that system in this country, a system of ordering plates sheared to sizes at the mill. (See “American Marine,” W. W. Bates.) Until he established this innovation, plates for building iron vessels had been rolled as nearly as possible to the sizes required and then sheared 111and trimmed at the shipyard. This itself was a very remarkable and striking innovation, and was immediately taken up by all iron ship-builders in the country, and is now the universal practice.
The legislative result of the first effort of Congress to take cognizance of the condition of the merchant marine was the bill introduced by Mr. Lynch, February 17, 1870.
Mr. Lynch’s bill, although it may be described as the pioneer effort for the resurrection of the American merchant marine, proposed in concise form and plain, easily comprehensible terms, without any unnecessary verbiage or circumlocution, as practical and as sensible a system of subvention as has ever been put forward since. It was comprehensive in its scope, universal in its application, and liberal in its provisions. Later bills, more elaborately framed and more diffuse in their verbiage, have hardly improved upon the simple matter of fact form in which Mr. Lynch embodied his proposed policy.
This was the beginning of a Parliamentary war between American ship-owners on the one hand and the influence of foreign steamship companies on the other; a war which has at this writing lasted more than thirty years.
One subsidy was granted by Congress at this 112early date, that of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company; but hardly had that subsidy begun to operate, when an exposure of certain methods by which it was procured brought about a great public scandal, which for the time-being put a peremptory end to the whole policy.
Whether the charge that the Pacific Mail subsidy was obtained by corrupt methods was true or not, the means in obtaining it were no more corrupt than those which have been employed by foreign steamship interests to defeat legislation in Congress favorable to American shipping from time to time ever since.
Notwithstanding these discouraging conditions, a group of Pennsylvania capitalists formed “the American Steamship Company,” and decided in 1871 to try the experiment of an American Line to Liverpool. They contracted with the Cramp firm for four first-class steamships, to be superior in sea speed, comfort, and other desirable qualities to any foreign steamship then in service. These four ships were designed by Mr. Cramp, and built under his superintendence between 1871 and 1873 inclusive, and were put in service under the names of the “Indiana,” “Illinois,” “Pennsylvania,” and “Ohio,” now commonly known as the old American Line. That these 113ships were designed with the highest degree of ability and constructed with the utmost skill is sufficiently attested by the fact that they are all in serviceable condition at this writing (1903), over thirty years old. These ships broke the record in speed which was held by the “City of Brussels,” and consumed less than half of the coal in doing it.
As soon as the construction of these ships had been awarded to his Company, Mr. Cramp determined to examine the conditions of marine-engine development abroad, and with that object in view sailed immediately for Europe. His narrative of the trip and its results are as follows:
VISIT TO BRITISH SHIPYARDS.
“When the organization of the Company was perfected, the compound engine as developed by John Elder had made its appearance, and a fierce opposition to its introduction was made by engine-builders in Great Britain generally.
“Its advocates were among the ablest engineers in that country, foremost among whom was Mr. MacFarland Gray, whose unassailable attitude in its favor in the columns of ‘Engineering’ vindicated its claims and successfully established its introduction. While the idea was an old one and had been introduced before Watt’s time, it failed, as most improvements do when they do not get into proper hands to be developed.
“To John Elder belongs the credit of its permanent 114and practical introduction into ocean navigation, and but little improvement has been made in his work up to this time.
“Mr. B. H. Bartol, who occupied a high position for intelligence and sagacity in the business world and as a practical marine engineer of the highest attainments, was one of the directors of the new steamship company, and, desiring that the ships should be in advance of the times, he recommended that I should go to Great Britain and make an exhaustive examination of the compound-engine question.
“Mr. J. Shields Wilson, who had been selected by me as the engineer of our Company, which had recently added engine building as a department of its business, accompanied me. Mr. Wilson had already gone very deep into the investigation of the compound question, and had acquired a strong bias in its favor; and he had already designed the compound engines for the ‘George W. Clyde.’
“Mr. Bartol recommended the steamship company to appropriate $10,000 to pay our expenses in the investigation, arguing that the money could not be spent in a better way, and that they could not get another party better equipped than we were to undertake it. He also stated that he would oppose the construction of any steamers until he became convinced that they would be of the most advanced type in everything that pertains to most modern requirements.
“The money was promptly appropriated, and with Mr. Wilson I took passage in the ‘Italy,’ the first trans-Atlantic steamer with compound engines of John Elder’s make and type, whose reported performance in economical coal consumption was considered at that time marvellous.
“We soon made the acquaintance of the chief engineer of the ship, whose name also was Wilson, and Mr. Wilson 115practically lived with him. He was permitted to take cards under varying conditions, and secured an accurate account of coal consumption and of all other matters likely to be of interest.
“When we arrived at Liverpool, we visited the Lairds’, being the first English shipyard that either of us had ever visited.
“We then visited every great marine engine and ship-building works on the Thames and Clyde, beginning with the Thames, whose shipyards at that time stood higher in the art of ship-building and in the proficiency of marine-engine construction than the Clyde shipyards. When we started on our tour we determined to adhere to a fixed policy and procedure wherever we went, which was to frankly praise whatever we thought deserving of it and to adversely criticise whatever we thought deserved such criticism; and particularly to make no secret of the principal object of our visit.
“Our Company was practically unknown then in Great Britain, and steamship building was supposed to be an unknown art in America; but we were received with much cordiality and frankness, probably from mere curiosity, if nothing else.
“Fortunately for us, we visited the works of Mr. Zamuda first, where a capable engineer was delegated to show us around. It having been noticed that we had registered our names, one as ship-builder and constructor and the other as marine engineer, the Superintendent was anxious to have our dimensions taken. There was no time wasted, and our questions and remarks covering everything in sight or in the field of ship-building methods were showered on him in a deluge. He had expected to get through with us in a very short time, thinking that a sort of perfunctory visit ‘in one door and out at the 116opposite’ would be sufficient; but finding that he had been mistaken, he sent a boy out with a note and soon received an answer. We spent the greater part of the morning there. When it became noon, he explained that he had sent a note out to Mr. Zamuda, stating that we were well up in everything pertaining to the business, etc. Mr. Zamuda’s reply was to send us in to him when we were through. He received us with much consideration and politeness, invited us to take luncheon with him, and devoted much time to questions as to wages of workmen, materials, and where they were secured, prices, character of output, etc.
“When he found that we were doing considerable in the way of iron ship-building, principally coastwise, he was much astonished to know that most of the workmen as well as Mr. Wilson and myself were native to the soil, and he had much to say on the subject.
“When he had finished with us, and after we had informed him of the purpose of our visit and that we wanted to see the principal shipyards in the country, he stated that he would facilitate our purpose by giving us letters to the Superintendents of the principal places; explaining that they would take time to show us what was worth seeing, while, if we went to the office, we would only be hurried through in a careless manner.
“It was due to this act of kindness on his part that our visits afterward were so successful in the acquisition of valuable information, and as to the generous hospitalities that we received. We visited first the Thames Iron Works, John Penn & Sons, Mandsleys, and others. From the Thames we went direct to the Clyde, where we visited the Thompsons, the Lairds, Tod and McGregor, John Inglis, Elders, and some others.
“The consensus of opinion of the different shipyards on 117the subject of compound engines was, as a rule, unfavorable. We found that the opposition was principally due to the fact that the change from the old type to the new involved important and radical modifications in the constructions of boilers and of engines, so they hesitated to discard their old plans, patterns, and methods, the value of which they were sure of, and to grope into an unknown field of augmented costliness.
“Of course, these arguments to us were not convincing, and as we advanced to the north we found ourselves quite biassed in favor of the new type. Whatever doubts we may have had up to the time of our arrival at the Fairfield Works, they were forever removed when we visited their magnificent erecting shop. We saw there thirteen compound engines in various states of completion, with their various parts ready for assembling, some about ready for installation in the ship, the whole exhibiting everything in the way of finish and arrangement both in their various parts and in the whole erection. Up to this time we had encountered engines of the oscillating type, the trunk, the plain vertical, and horizontal in every varying form and construction. It was the same old story,—an old one before we left home; and now, without any preparation whatever for it, this vision of thirteen actualities of the new departure burst upon our view. We spent the entire day there, the Superintendent affording us every opportunity to examine the parts and discuss the subject. We found as much novelty in the boiler construction as in the engine.
“An old Philadelphia boiler had made its appearance here as ‘the Scotch Boiler’; this differed from the old one only in the thickness of the plates, due to the necessities of the use of higher steam.
“After this there was nothing to be seen, and we 118hastened home, and in a very short time the Elder type of compound engines was under construction for our new ships practically before any of the various shipyards in Great Britain other than John Elders’ took hold of them.
“To John Elder belongs the entire credit of introducing and perfecting the compound engine, and there has been but little improvement in his work up to this time. MacFarland Gray at that time was a persistent advocate of this engine, and his work on ‘Engineering’ was of great value. He took especial pains to aid us in our investigations.
“This trip was a most useful one besides the investigation of compound engines; it gave us an opportunity of examining every method pertaining to hull construction and equipment there, and to discuss all of the problems and methods belonging to it.
“Two great changes in mechanical method and practice in certain details of engine building took place in Great Britain as a result of our visit, and the arrival of the ‘Pennsylvania,’ the first of the American Line; although we took no active measures in that direction.
“We found during this trip that the art of flanging boiler-plates in Great Britain was entirely unknown, and that all British boiler-heads were secured to the side plates and to the furnace ends by means of angle bars in the corners, a crude and primitive method of construction. It was impossible for us to understand this backwardness or ignorance on the part of the British, as the flanging of boiler-heads had always prevailed here.
“We called the attention of the British builders generally to this superiority in boiler construction, but little or no attention was paid to what we said at that time; but when the four ships of the new line arrived in Liverpool, draughtsmen from all quarters were sent to make sketches 119of the boiler work, and of many other devices new to them, besides the boiler construction, one of which was the use of white metal in bearings and journals. This feature in the engine construction the British had not taken up when we visited their works.
“We can claim to have introduced boiler flanging and the use of white metal in British ship construction on account of our recommendations, and the practical illustration of their utility on the arrival of the ships of the American Line.
“The builders there, however, were very slow in the general adoption of these methods. At first boiler-heads were delivered at engine-works flanged by the mills that made the plates, and Sampson Fox added boiler flanging to his business of making corrugated furnaces. Having seen a boiler furnished with corrugated furnaces by Sampson Fox in England, I introduced them in two yachts built for George Osgood and Charles Osbourne, the first furnaces of the kind in America. These yachts were known as the ‘Corsair’ and the ‘Stranger.’”
The construction of the four pioneer ships went on as it had begun, without promise of aid from the government, which steadily maintained its attitude of neglect as to the national merchant marine, while hundreds upon hundreds of millions in the shape of guarantee bonds and public land grants were poured out by the Congress in favor of western railroads, but not one dollar for the merchant marine.
Still, notwithstanding these discouraging conditions, Mr. Cramp did not abate in the 120slightest degree his endeavors to keep the needs of the country in the direction of a national merchant marine before Congress and the public. A compilation of the articles he published and of his statements before the committees of both Houses of Congress would, on the whole, fill several volumes like this one. It is therefore impracticable to reproduce here the actual text of his arguments and his expositions.
Newspaper organs of the foreign steamship interests published in this country denounced him as a “subsidy beggar” and other like epithets, which was all that they had to offer in answer to his deductions and arguments; but even that did not disturb the even tenor of his way.
Finally, in the Forty-seventh Congress, a joint select committee of three Senators and six Representatives was organized, of which Nelson Dingley, of Maine, was chairman; and this organization led to the formation of a new standing committee of the House known as the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries. Mr. Dingley’s committee spent an entire summer in going from point to point on the sea-board and taking testimony and statements of all classes of business men interested in any way or informed to any responsible degree as 121to the condition of the merchant marine and as to the possible or probable means to bring about its resurrection.
The investigation of the Dingley Committee led to the formulation of a comprehensive measure known as the “Dingley Shipping Bill.” It was thoroughly and exhaustively discussed through three Congresses, until finally, in the last hours of the short session of the Congress ending March 4, 1891, a bill was passed providing for a meagre and wholly insufficient subsidy in the shape of special pay for carrying the ocean mails of the United States. This bill was not only meagre in its provisions, but it was not comprehensive in its application. It did not result in any immediate increase of foreign tonnage. The following year, however, Mr. Cramp, in a spirit of meeting the free-ship people half-way, agreed to a compromise which provided that certain ships of foreign (British) registry might be admitted to American registry, provided their owners would contract to build two ships of equal class and tonnage in the United States. This was the act by virtue of which the English steamships “New York” and “Paris,” belonging to the International Navigation Company, an American corporation and owned by American capital, were brought under 122the American flag, and the “St. Louis” and “St. Paul” were contracted for and built to meet the condition imposed by this law.
The principal dimensions and qualities of these ships are as follows:
Length between perpendiculars, 535 feet 8 inches.
Length over all, 554 feet 2 inches.
Extreme beam, 62 feet 9 inches.
Depth from first deck to flat keel, 42 feet 4 inches.
Depth of hold for tonnage amidships, 23 feet 2 inches.
Height of bow above water-line at load draught, 39 feet.
Number of decks, 5.
Number of water-tight compartments exclusive of ballast tanks, 12.
Gross register, 10,700 tons.
Load displacement (about), 15,600 tons.
Dimensions of main dining-saloon, 109 feet 4 inches by 46 feet.
Dimensions of second cabin, 39 feet 6 inches by 56 feet.
Seating capacity of main saloon, 322.
Seating capacity of second cabin, 208.
Berthing capacity of steerage (about), 900.
ARMORED CRUISER NEW YORK
The propelling machinery is a pair of vertical inverted quadruple-expansion engines, to carry a working steam-pressure of two hundred pounds and develop from 18,000 to 20,000 collective indicated horse-power. These are the largest and most powerful marine engines ever built in America, and, as the principle of quadruple expansion has never before been 123applied on so large a scale, its results in this case have been watched with interest by the entire profession of marine engineering.
Structurally, the art of naval architecture has been exhausted in their design, and the skill of the best mechanics in the world was tried to the utmost in their construction. Whatever may have been their performance as to speed and time of passage, nothing is hazarded in saying that in safety, seaworthiness, and comfort they are not surpassed by anything afloat.
In the general public or patriotic sense the chief element of interest in these ships is the fact that they represent the inception of an effort to restore the prestige of the United States as a maritime commercial power. The condition of affairs existing at the time the new American Liners were projected was the culminating point of our feebleness on the ocean.
The Act of 1891 was framed to expire by its own limitation in ten years from its date. Taken in connection with the Act of 1892, already referred to, it brought about the construction of two first-class American trans-Atlantic greyhounds (the “St. Louis” and “St. Paul”). Other companies or lines running to the West Indies, Mexico, and South 124America were also stimulated to build a few new ships, but, generally speaking, the effect of both these acts was limited, and produced no serious impression for the better on the American merchant marine in general.
This fact became evident very soon after these acts went into effect, and it became clear that a broader and more comprehensive policy must be adopted in the same direction if any great or lasting improvement of the condition of our merchant marine was to be expected.
This led to the framing of a new act, thoroughly comprehensive in its scope and universal in its application, on lines similar to those of the Dingley Bill of 1882, but broader.
Prior to 1891, Mr. Cramp had confined the statements, deductions, and arguments based upon his experience and observation wholly to hearings before committees of Congress, with now and then a newspaper interview, which in the nature of things must be transitory and soon forgotten. But in the fall of 1891 he determined to place his knowledge before the public in a more permanent form. This he began with a paper in the Forum for November of that year. The limits of this Memoir do not admit of the reproduction of this paper in its entirety. It filled sixteen pages of the Forum. The summary of the conclusion, however, 125may be reproduced. After an exhaustive analysis of the existing conditions and their causes, together with a survey of the probable effects of the act approved the previous March (March 3, 1891), Mr. Cramp summed up as follows:
“The commercial disadvantages resulting from a monopoly of our ocean-carrying trade by foreign fleets attracted public attention many years ago. From the first there was practical unanimity as to the existence of these disadvantages, and a like concurrence in the opinion that ‘something ought to be done’ to improve the situation; but upon the question of remedy there have always been wide divergences of view. It having been generally conceded that the remedy must at least begin in national legislation, the dispute has been simply as to what the character of that legislation should be. A certain faction contended that nothing was required beyond a simple repeal of the navigation laws, to permit the free importation and registry of foreign-built vessels; and bills to that effect have been introduced, and in many cases discussed, in nearly every Congress since 1870. In no case has a bill of this character passed both Houses of Congress, and but once has the measure received a majority in either House. That was in the Forty-seventh Congress, when a ‘Free Ship Amendment’ was proposed by Mr. Candler, of Massachusetts,—a bitter opponent of American ship-building,—to what was known as the ‘Dingley Shipping Bill,’ and Mr. Candler’s amendment was attached to the bill by a small majority. The result of this amendment was to kill the bill. It is not my purpose to discuss the merits of this proposition, further than to say that whatever 126increase in American tonnage might accrue from it would be gained at the expense of the destruction of American ship-building. That may be set down as an axiom to be observed as a necessary factor in every discussion of the subject. As pointed out at the beginning of this paper, the ship-building industry in Great Britain has been developed to such enormous proportions, and the facilities of construction enlarged to such a scale, that our own comparatively few and feeble shipyards would be instantly overwhelmed in the competition the moment our market was thrown open to them to unload their old and worn-out wares on American ‘bargain-hunters.’
“This fact is now so well understood, that I think there is no hazard in saying that a large majority of the best minds of all parties are convinced that the experiment of trying to augment our merchant marine by a policy calculated to destroy our ship-building industry would not be conducive to the general public interests.
“The other mode of remedy advocated has been that of adopting, in behalf of our own shipping, a policy similar to the one which has produced such striking results elsewhere; that is to say, public encouragement to the ownership and operation of American-built vessels in the foreign trade. This subject has for many years claimed a large share of the attention of Congress, commercial organizations, and the press. Its discussion has taken a wide scope, involving several exhaustive inquiries by congressional committees, numerous petitions and resolutions from boards of trades and chambers of commerce, with almost innumerable papers in the public prints, and speeches in our public halls; the whole forming what may be called the ‘Literature of our Merchant Marine.’ Its volume is so vast, that but the barest reference to its details can be made here. Suffice it to say, that it covers 127every conceivable point at issue; and it has been so universally published, that no person of ordinary intelligence and education can have excuse for ignorance or misinformation on the subject.
“The results of this agitation and discussion have been bills in Congress from time to time, providing for a more liberal and enlightened policy on the part of the government toward the national merchant marine. Some of these bills proposed special compensations to particular lines for carrying the mails. Such bills have failed in consequence of the objection that they involved the principle of special legislation. Other measures proposed a general bounty based upon tonnage and distance actually travelled in foreign trade. This plan at the outset seemed more popular than any other, and there was at one time strong probability of its enactment into law. But it finally failed, partly on account of clashing of diverse interests, and partly by reason of ‘party exigencies,’ real or supposed, in the House of Representatives. It is hardly pertinent at this time to point out the benefits that would have accrued, directly and incidentally, to every branch of our national life and industry, from a tonnage law properly administered. I have never hesitated, and do not now hesitate, to declare that ten years of its operation would result in placing our merchant marine in the foreign trade on a footing second only to that of Great Britain in amou............