measurement. (Act March 2, 1799.). Not only do these "tons" differ, the old measurement ton being divided into ninety-five parts, and the new measurement ton into one hundred parts, but the methods of measurement enjoined respectively in the two laws are very different, and many portions of a vessel-for instance, the enclosed spaces on the upper decks of a steamboat-are now reckoned a part of her tonnage, which were not before. The relation between old measurement and new measurement differs with almost every difference in the build of vessels, and it is difficult to arrive at a satisfactory average for our foreign tonnage, including as it does considerable steamboat tonnage with Canada. Ten to fifteen per cent., however, I think would cover the ground; that is to say, the average of American vessels in the foreign trade will, upon readmeasurement under the new law, count from ten to fifteen per cent. more tons" than they did before.

66

As shown by the following table, more than half of our present "foreign trade," if the official figures are correct, is with British North America. This trade is mainly done in steamboats,* and these vessels measure sometimes double as much under the new law as under the old. I would like to speak more definitely on this point, but as yet no complete statistics on the subject have been received at this bureau, although due inquiries have been made.—(See Supplement 1.)

Bearing these facts in mind, our foreign tonnage does not appear to have improved, nor indeed changed at all since 1864, the year of the second great falling off subsequent to 1860; the first one having been 1861. It would seem that in 1861 and 1864 we lost all our best sea-going ships, and that since the last named year, though the amount of our foreign trade has increased in specie value, our American tonnage has remained inert.

It is worthy of note that the tonnage of ferry-boats between the United States and the Canadian lake ports is included in the summary of our foreign trade, and that no distinction is made in our accounts between ves; sels in cargo and vessels in ballast; so that it will probably be revealed, on close examination, that our real foreign tonuage is for both of these reasons far below the nominal. (See Supplement 2.)

In 1860..

1861. 1862.

1863..

+ Specie value of imports and exports combined, in millions of dollars.

It is proper here to remark that from the appearance of some of the "Annual Reports on Commerce and Navigation," from which these figures were deduced, too much reliance ought not to be placed on their entire

correctness.

From the increase in the number of vessels indicated in the above tables these conclusions seem to be superficially reached, but such is not the fact. We now employ smaller (because generally older and cheaper) vessels in our ocean traffic.

Of the best ships which remained to us after 1863 many have since been either sold abroad, lost at sea, captured, or worn out,* and these have been mainly replaced by old vessels previously employed in our coasting trade. No better proof of these statements could be furnished than the figures already given. Our whole foreign carriage in 1860 was done in vessels aggregating 17,064,125 tons capacity, and in 1866, 15,604,044 tons. Commencing with 10,828 vessels, (average entered and cleared,) and 2,488,958 tons (average entered and cleared) in 1860, the foreign vessels engaged in the American carrying trade this year exhibit average aggregates of 17,538 vessels, and 4,424,404 tons. This shows that while the whole tonnage fell off one-twelfth, the foreign vessels increased in their number and tonnage nearly twice. This movement sustained no diminution in 1866. On the contrary, the foreign vessels engaged in trading with us largely increased in 1866 over 1865, or indeed any previous year, both in number and tonnage. So that if with a foreign carrying trade rather under than equal to that of 1860, as indicated by the tonnage capacity of all the vessels employed in it at both periods, a regular and marked increase is observable in the proportion of it shared by foreign vessels, we arrive at a conviction concerning the progress of American tonnage which falls a little short of certainty. That conviction has already been stated. Our commerce upon the high seas, at one time so potent a means of acquiring national wealth, and at the same time of exhibiting to the world a proud indication of our growing strength and spreading influence, has fallen to so low a point that while in the year 1853 it was fifteen per cent. greater than that of Great Britain, and maintained a close competition with it up to the year 1861, it had fallen in 1864 to less than half as much, and is now probably not over a third Furthermore, that while in 1860 two-thirds of our imports and more than two-thirds of our exports were carried in American bottoms, in 1866 nearly three-fourths of our imports and over three-fifths of our exports were carried in foreign bottoms. The accompanying tables furnish the data.

*See Commerce and Navigation Reports, 1861, p. 500; 1862, p. 326; 1863, p. 334; 1864, p. 386; 1865, p. 726: and 1866, p.. During all these years, since 1861, there has been a steady decrease in our registered tonnage.

TABLE OF THE STRICTLY FOREIGN TONNAGE OF THREE NATIONS.

A statement of the tonnage, respectively, of American, British, and French vessels which entered at, and cleared to, ports of foreign powers in each year since 1820.

French tonnage included all kinds of fisheries till 1833; since that date it includes, of fisheries, only whale

fisheries.

TOTAL IMPORTS.

EXPORTS.

TOTAL EXPORTS.

American vessels. Foreign vessels. American vessels. Foreign vessels. Amer'n vessels. Foreign vessels. American vessels. Foreign vessels.

Total.

2,886, 509, 845

2, 002, 148, 356

2,819,000, 657

1,996, 272, 583

210,991, 551

159,927, 553

2, 194, 681, 411

THE CAUSE.

The decadence of our foreign tonnage is commonly referred to the war, and the havoc and fear occasioned by rebel privateers. But since these causes ceased to operate, the lowering movement attributed to them continued to prevail, and no such opposite movement as our present commerce would appear to demand has yet indicated itself. On the contrary, while our foreign commerce is sensibly increasing, its profits are even more sensibly being earned by foreign vessels. The carrying trade is greater than ever, but its increase is marked by the increase of foreign flags in our harbors, not by that of American tonnage, the inertness of which is only concealed by the dwindling size and growing decrepitude of the vessels which represent it. These considerations appear to prove that the influence exerted by the late war upon the tonnage of American vessels engaged in the foreign carrying trade has ere this totally ceased. Were this not the case ship-building, instead of being depressed, would, on the contrary, be very animated, seeing that, once the fear of privateering were removed, the demand for vessels would be more than ordinary, and ship-builders would be reaping a harvest of fresh orders. The continued depression of this interest, according to the opinions of most of the ship-builders I have seen or heard from, is attributed to the present pressure of taxation.

THE REMEDY.

There appear to be four striking methods of remedying this state of affairs. First. To repeal that portion of the navigation act of 1793 which virtually forbids American merchants from running foreign-built ships. Were this pro vision repealed, our merchants, like those of the free cities of Northern Europe, would be enabled to purchase their vessels where they could purchase them cheapest. But this, while it would doubtless restore, and perhaps more than restore, our lost carrying trade, would furnish no relief to our ship-building

interest.

Second. To pay such bounties or subsidies to our ship-builders as would make good the difference between the price at which merchants could afford to purchase American-built vessels to run in the foreign trade, and the price at which the builder could construct them at a profit; or to grant such bounties or subsidies to the merchants engaged in running them as would make good the losses they would sustain by reason of the excessive first cost of the vessels. This principle has already found a precedent in the case of the ocean steamvessels subsidized for special purposes by the government.

Third. To remit the duties on all imported, and the internal taxes on all domestic, materials that enter into the construction of a vessel. The relative proportion of the kinds of these materials used in building a first-class ship, as will be seen on reference to the accompanying documents, are, roughly stated,

as follows:

Cost of materials in a 1,223 ton ship, worth $96,650 currency, or about $80

currency per ton:

Wood material...

Iron....