The Conservative.
COST OF SHIPBUILDING IN UNITED
STATES AND ABROAD.
/
In his discussion of cost , of American ,
as compared with British shipbuilding ,
Mr. Chamberlain , the commissioner of
navigation , insists that British labor
and machinery is more effective , from
the fact that it is conducted on a whole
sale , as distinguished from the retail
scale , upon which American shipyards
are conducted ; and at page 25 of his last
annual report he gives a table showing
that in 1805) ) Great Britain produced ,
1,341,000 tons of steel shipping , and the
United States 103,000 tons.
The force of his argument is broken
by the fact , shown by his table at page
15 , that , of the 30 largest shipyards in
the world , the Cramps' is second in the
list , and larger than any in Great Britain
that the Newport News Company's
yard is sixth , and surpassed by but one
in Ireland and one in England ; while
the Union Iron "Works of San Francisco ,
and the American Shipbuilding Com
pany of Cleveland , are included in the
first twelve ; America has already one-
third of the largest shipyards in exist
ence , and is so adding to them that in
shipyards which maybe truly considered
"wholesale" within two years she will
lead the world.
Indeed , a year ago Senator Frye him
self admitted ( Senate Hearings , p. 2) )
that C. P. Huntington's yards at New
port News were probably- the "finest
shipyards in the world. " And Mr.
Chamberlain , liimself , selects the fourth
in size of American shipyards for the
following explanation :
"In point of cost , promptitude of
delivery , and adaptability to the special
trade , steel steamship building on the
Great Lakes at the present time is not
surpassed by shipbuilding in any other
part of the world. It does not , however ,
come into competition with the shipping
of foreign nations , and while a source
of strength to the United States , it is
not yet a factor in any effort we may
make for a share of the ocean-carrying
trade. "
After Mr. Chamberlain had written
the words thus quoted , but before they
had been printed for congress , he had
himself passed favorably upon the status
for American registry of a class of 7,000
ton vessels which the American Ship
building Company , familiarly known as
the "Great Lakes Shipbuilding Trust , "
had already arranged to build on the lakes
for the ocean trade. Its organ , "The Ma"-
rine Review" of Cleveland , is naturally
"booming" the subsidy bill.
Opinion of Shipbuilder.
The force of Mr. Chamberlain's re
peated suggestion as to successful lines ,
that they have been built under subsidy ,
is most decidedly broken by his ad
mission at page 28 of his annual report :
, "Two steamships , each of 20,000 gross
tons , larger than any steamships now in
existence , have been contracted for by
the Great Northern Railroad to bo
launched during the fiscal year 1002 ,
designed for direct trade between Puget
Sound , China and Japan. These ves
sels , of 18 knots , will not bo eligible for
mail subsidy under the act of 1891.
They are the first ocean steel steamships
ordered in the United States exclusively
for direct competition without subsidy
with foreign vessels. "
Especially when , from Mr. Hill , the
president of the Great Northern Rail
road , wo learn why these ships the
most important venture ever undertaken
for our export trade were ordered in
America instead of abroad.
"We can build ships in this country , "
says Mr. Hill , "as well and as cheaply
as they can bo built anywhere in the
world. Now I had figures within the
last year furnished from the best build
ers on the Clyde , and figures from as
good builders as there are in this
country , and to my utter amazement the
American figures on a single ship were
80,000 to 100,000 under the best Clyde
builders , and when we get the ship
subsidy that is promised , see how happy
we shall be. " ( Laughter. )
* * * They have set apart 80
per cent of the subsidy appropriation for
the Pacific Ocean. No doubt some of
my friends thought they were serving
me , and in a money sense perhaps they
were , but I would much rather see them
take the duty off the plates that are to
go into the ships when they are built. "
But it is Mr. Chamberlain , himself ,
who , on this point , finally stops his own
mouth. For at page 12 and elsewhere
in his report he mentions the Hamburg-
American Steamship Company as first
in the world in importance and enter
prise , with its 515,000 tonnage of ship
ping , averaging 6,500 tons to the vessel ;
which has been built up without sub
sidies and is recorded by Mr. Chamber
lain as paying better dividends than its
great subsidized rival.
Comparative Cost.
Most amusing is Mr. Chamberlain's
offhand demonstration that ship con
struction is more expensive here than in
Great Britain. It is as follows ( p. 32 of
his report ) :
"The price in July , at the beginning
of the current fiscal year , of a steel
cargo steamship of 8,750 gross tons , 9 %
knots speed , carrying 5,800 tons of cargo ,
including bunker coals ( Pleiades or
Hyades ) was $275,000 in the United
States and $214,000 in Great Britain. "
And referring to the instance thus
noted :
"As illustrating the relationship of the
cost of steel plates to the total cost of an
ocean steamship , it may bo noted that in
July , when plates were selling here at
$28 per ton , and in Great Britain at
$40.86 , the owners of the two vessels
just named invited bids for the con
struction of a now vessel identical with
the Hyades. The American bid was
$275,000 and the British 44,000
( $214,000) ) . The cost of the material
entering into the hull of the American
vessel would have been $08,000 , and of
the British vessel $80,000 , leaving for
labor , machinery , profit , etc. , $212,000
in the case of the American and $184,000
in the case of the British vessel , or an
excess cost of the American vessel , ex
cluding hull material , of $78,000. "
But at the late meeting of the Ameri
can Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers , all parties agreed that
the labor on the steel work construction
cost about the same in Great Britain as
in this country ; and Mr. Babcock proved ,
from the figures of Mr. Dickie , the other
expert , that the labor cost of a bulk
freighter could not be over 8 to 4 per
cent more in Great Britain than in
America. Mr. Chamberlain's figures
evidently need examination.
In the first place he compares the bids
of American with British shipyards , at
a time when the latter were only doing
their normal work , and the former were
so filled with orders here as practically
to be unable to contract for more.
Again , the coincidence is most un
fortunate that Mr. Chamberlain selected
for his comparison just that sort of ship
a 9 % knot tramp steamer just below
the tonnage (4,000 ( tons ) that he himself
uses as the dividing line between large
and small ships that ten years ago
Great Britain built in job lots ; that was
then the standard for the carrying trade ;
that every year in the future will do
less of it ; and that with all their
tenderness for old and slow ships Mr.
Hanna and Mr. Frye considered were
far too slow to be worth encouraging
by speed subsidy.
Of course British shipyards can build
such ships on practically no margin so
long as people want them. Of course
American shipyards which are practi
cally all new ones are not specially
equipped to build such vessels ; do not
propose to become so ; and , so long as
they are busy with the better sort of
work that they are fitted for , do not
care to build them at any price.
Mr. Chamberlain , himself , informs us
( p. 18) ) that the increase in size of ves
sels stands for a fact in industrial
organization quite as important as the
progress in the mechanical arts to which
they testify ; that in 1900 there were 980
vessels of over 4,000 tons as compared
with 218 such in 1890 ; that ( pp. 27-28) )
of those building in the United States
ten years ago for foreign trade , there
were but three , of which the largest was
only 4,115 tons ; but that today there are
building ten such , of which six are of
more than 10,000 tons each , and two of
20,000 tons each.
Nine years since , in the "North Amer
ican Review , " Mr. Cramp both stated
