lishment; and they now intend that the following ships shall sail between New York and Liverpool, in regular succession, twice in each month from each port, leaving both New York and Liverpool on the 1st and 16th of every month throughout the year, viz:

"Ship New York, George Maxwell, master.

Ship Columbia, James Rodgers, master.
Ship Orbit, Joseph Tinkham, master.

"Ship Wm. Thompson, R. R. Crocker, master.
"Ship Pacific, S. Maxwell, master.

"Ship Jas. Cropper, C. H. Marshall, master. "Ship Canada, Seth G. Macy, master.

"Ship Nestor, William Lee, jr., master.

"These ships were built in New York, of the best materials, and are coppered and copper-fastened. They are very fast sailers, their accommodations for passengers are uncommonly extensive and commodious, and they are commanded by men of great experience. The price of passage to England in the cabin is now fixed at thirty guineas, for which sum passengers will be furnished with beds, bedding, wine, and stores of all kinds. For further particulars apply to

"October 30, 1824."

"ISAAC WRIGHT & SON,
"FRANCIS THOMPSON,
BENJAMIN MARSHALL, or
"JEREMIAH THOMPSON.

Published in the Globe, by John Mortimer, 74 South Second street, Philadelphia.

The CHAIRMAN. Then your connection has been mainly with sailing-vessels? Mr. MARSHALL. Mainly with sailing-vessels, and with steam-vessels so far as foreign consignments are concerned. But I have no steam-vessels of my own, nor have I any interest in any.

The CHAIRMAN. The branch of the business with which you have been so long connected is not prosperous?

Mr. MARSHALL. No, sir; it is almost in a state of death.

The CHAIRMAN. Very many statements have been made to the committee about the misfortune of having the shipping interest of the United States go into decay, and various suggestions have been made for the restoration of sailing-vessels. You were present one day when that suggestion was made, and you replied to it at the time. If, in your own way, you will explain the position of the shipping business in this country, and of foreign commerce, and make such suggestions as you think will tend to the general benefit, the committee will be glad to hear you.

Mr. MARSHALL. Before making any remark, Mr. Chairman, and before answering any questions that you may be pleased to ask me, I desire to say that I am not a large ship-owner. I have had connection with the commerce of the country ever since I went into business, fifteen years ago. My father, prior to his death, was engaged in carrying on business of that kind for something like thirty years. I am happy to say that I am not a large ship-owner, because the more shipping interest a man owns nowadays the poorer he certainly is. Nor am I a large capitalist in any sense of the word. I acknowledge that I am one of the "bloated" bondholders; but as the bloat is not external, it must be mainly internal. I certainly am not ashamed to own some of the obligations of my country, and I have too much confidence in the faith and integrity of the government ever to imagine that it will repudiate, or seek to evade, the payment of a dollar of its just liabilities. I would like to remark, in passing, that I am not one of those who look upon the efforts of this committee as being nugatory and futile; nor am I one of those who sneer at the evidence given before the committee by those whose views differ very widely from my own. I have noticed that some of the newspapers have characterized some of the evidence given before this committee as the evidence of a set of lunatics. Now, I do not think that such is the case. I think that the evidence given before this committee is the enunciation of the distress that pervades this country-a distress which is very much exaggerated, no doubt, but which is certainly real and pressing. I have no doubt that the laboring man is more pinched in regard to his ability to obtain a living now than he was ten years ago; and I think it is the duty of every man who has an interest in society not to turn a deaf ear to the utterances of the workingmen, even though they may be imperfect; but, on the contrary, to listen to them attentively, and, if possible, to suggest some remedy by which the distress may be alleviated.

The CHAIRMAN. You think that these complaints may be "the voice of one crying in the wilderness" to express a distress which they do not know how to account for or remedy?

Mr. MARSHALL. I think it is. It is the voice of the people, who know that they want a remedy, but who do not know where to find it; and if they are obliged to listen to the counsel of leaders whose projects would only succeed in involving them

in distress infinitely more miserable than that which they now suffer from, of course their condition will never be improved. And they will listen to that counsel unless other counsel is given to them, and unless other leaders come forward and suggest some tangible mode by which to escape from the present prostration in business. I therefore think that the work of this committee will be eminently useful, notwithstanding a great deal is said before it in which I cannot concur. Still, certainly its outgrowth will tend to good; and although I have not had occasion to praise Congress very much for what it has done, I think that, in appointing this committee, it has acted wisely and rightly. I do not know whether you wish me to confine my views entirely to the question of the shipping business, to the decadence into which it has fallen, and to the remedies which I consider necessary for its revival; or whether you wish me to answer questions in relation to the general depression in business.

The CHAIRMAN. As you are recognized as an expert in the shipping business I think that if you would, at the outset, explain your views in regard to the shipping business of the country, it would be best. And after that, we may take up some of the collateral points.

Mr. MARSHALL. I suppose it is well known to almost every one in this room that the United States, prior to the war of 1861, was one of the foremost commercial nations on the globe. Its maritime tonnage engaged in foreign trade was only exceeded by that of Great Britain, and was very slightly exceeded by that of Great Britain, and it promised in a few years to rival if not to surpass the tonnage of its great competitor. There were reasons why the United States made such rapid strides in commerce, and those reasons may be briefly summed up in a few words. We possessed at that time the material out of which vessels were constructed, which was wood. The forests of this country furnished all the material necessary for the construction of vessels. American ingenuity and American invention were most important factors at that time in the development of the country's greatness, and they took part in that particular branch of industry. Add to all this the fact that the tendency and tastes of the people were in the direction of a sea-faring life, and it is no wonder that this country, having the material close at hand from which it could build ships better than any other nation, and having this progressive tendency in a commercial direction, was able not only to hold its own, but to rapidly increase its tonnage, and to hold out the promise (which would have been fulfilled had it not been for the events of the war) that that tonnage would surpass the tonnage of any nation of the globe. We went on constructing wooden ships for a series of years. We could furnish fast ships. We carried the products of this country to the East and brought back those from China. Our clippers covered the Pacific and the Eastern oceans, and between England and America went lines of packet-ships that were celebrated in their day, and that absorbed not only the cream of trade, but carried the mails, until the inauguration of steam. This state of things went on so long as we possessed this cheap material for building ships, but a transition took place about 1850 to 1855, when it was demonstrated that iron could profitably be used as a material for ship-building. At that time this country had no large development of iron industry, but England, on the contrary, had a very large development of iron industry; and when this discovery was made, the English, profiting by it, of course commenced to construct ships of this new material. The United States, on the contrary, went on constructing vessels of wood; and, although the impetus which we had gathered by our previous commercial progress still continued to carry it on until one or two years after the war began, still the elements of our commercial decadence were then existing, and the result was certain, so far as England being able to supplant our wooden ships by iron ships of an improved construction. Then the war broke out and the ocean was covered with privateers; or, if not covered with privateers, certainly there were enough of them to make ship-owning interest very hazardous property. Capital refused to embark any longer in shipping enterprises, and the amount of our tonnage engaged in foreign trade sensibly diminished. After the war England had gained so far upon us in the construction of iron ships and steamers that it was very difficult for us to regain the ground which we had lost. During the war (after 1860) there was another cause which was operating to prevent us recovering our lost ground. The tariff, which was passed shortly after the secession of the Southern States from the Union, largely augmented the duties on all articles entering into commerce and on all articles used in the construction of ships and steamers. Therefore, the cost of constructing wooden vessels being very much enhanced, and the navigation laws (which dated from 1789) forbidding American citizens to purchase ships abroad and to register them under the American flag, we were placed between the two horns of a dilemma. On the one side we could not construct ships, as they cost too dear; and, on the other side, we were forbidden to take advantage of the progress which England had made in marine architecture, and to buy our vessels in the English market. The decadence of American commerce was the sure result, and it needed no prophet to foretell what it would ultimately come to. That condition of things has gone on ever since 1860, during which time our tonnage has very sensibly decreased. In 1860 we had 2,379,396 tons of regis tered vessels (that is, vessels engaged in foreign trade), and 2,599,373 tons engaged in

the coastwise trade, making an aggregate of very nearly 5,000,000 tons of shipping. In 1877 the tonnage of our registered vessels had fallen to 1,570,599 tons, and of our coastwise vessels to 2,488,189 tons.

The CHAIRMAN. The coast wise business has fallen off, too.

Mr. MARSHALL. It has fallen off as well, although not in the proportion of the foreign tonnage. The registered steam tonnage at present engaged in foreign trade is only 190,133 tons, and these are steamers that ply mainly on the Pacific. It includes, of course, the Philadelphia line to Liverpool, which is the only line of American steamers plying between this country and Europe under the American flag. The remainder is made up of vessels trading to the West Indies, &c. The American foreign tonnage entered at the port of New York (that is, tonnage entered at the custom-house, the same that comes and goes and is entered over again, but at the same time shows the relative growth and advance of tonnage) was, in 1860, 5,921,285 tons, and of foreign tonnage 2,352,911 tons; so that there was an excess of American tonnage over foreign tonnage of 3,567,374 tons. That continued (although gradually decreasing until 1863), when we had an excess of American tonnage entered in this way of 1,974,320. Then the tide turned. Then the foreign tonnage began to be largely in excess of the American tonnage, until in 1867 the foreign tonnage exceeded the American tonnage by nearly two million tons; and in 1876 the difference in favor of the foreign tonnage was 5,287,876 tons. That shows the decadence of the American shipping interest and the advance of foreign tonnage so far as England is concerned.

The CHAIRMAN. Are we the only commercial country that prohibits the purchase of ships and steamers in foreign countries?

Mr. MARSHALL. We are the only one. All countries, even Japan, have repealed all restrictions in that respect. I think that we are the only government that prohibits its citizens from buying steamers and ships abroad, where they can procure them cheapest, and running them under the flag of their own nation. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the example of other countries in that respect is eminently useful to us, although there is a tendency among us rather to decry and look down upon the experience of other countries in their commercial relations. An eminent Senator recently expressed himself to this effect: "What has this country to do with foreign countries?" Now, on the contrary, I am clearly of opinion that this country has a great deal to do with foreign countries. The same laws must obtain here, so far as the regulation of trade and commerce is concerned, that obtain in other countries. There are lessons to be derived from the experience of other countries to show us the proper path to pursue. The progress of English shipping is very extraordinary. You are aware that prior to 1849 the same restrictions obtained in England in regard to the purchase and registry of vessels that obtain here at the present day. The old navigation laws, which were the embodiment of stupidity and ignorance, were a direct impediment to the progress of commerce in England; but in 1849 those laws were entirely swept away; and at the present moment the carrying trade in England is as free as any other department of industry. An American citizen can go to England and embark in the coasting trade there if he likes, or he can purchase a ship wherever he chooses and register it under the English flag. In fact, the carrying trade in England is open to the citizens of foreign countries on the same terms as it is to its own subjects.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you propose to discuss the advantage or the disadvantage of that policy?

Mr. MARSHALL. I merely go on to show you that since the removal of these navigation laws the tonnage of England has increased.

The CHAIRMAN. What do you bring forward as the chief argument in favor of abolishing all navigation laws and opening transportion (coast wise and ocean wise) to all the world? What advantage is it to a people to have that state of things?

Mr. MARSHALL. The primary advantage to a people in abolishing all restrictions (I mean so far as the foreign trade is concerned, where competition is general) is that it enables citizens to obtain its tools, its implements of industry, where they can get them cheapest. For instance, at present it costs to build an American ship of wood (and I believe there never has been but one iron sailing ship built in the country, the "Iron Age," although there have been iron steamers built) is about $50 to $55 a ton. It might be done somewhat cheaper, but the work would be inferior. To build a first-class American wooden ship, capable of engaging in the North Atlantic trade, will now cost $50 to $55 a ton; and that is very much cheaper than the same ship could have been built for ten years ago. Ten years ago it would cost from $80 to $90 a ton. I built a ship a few years ago which must have cost me from $50 to $85 a ton; but I am told that a first-class ship can be constructed here now of wood for $50 a ton. Now, on the Clyde you can construct a first-class iron ship with an East Indian outfit complete for from £12 to £13 per ton, which is somewhat more, it is true, than the cost of a firstclass wooden ship here. But the iron ship possesses immense advantages over the wooden ship. In the first place, it receives a class in the Bureau Veritas (the first underwriting agency in the world) of twenty years; that is, she has a life, so to speak, before her of twenty years, during which time she is not subject to any examination

except in case of accident. Now, a wooden ship can only receive from the same classification a life of nine years, during which time she is not subject to any examinationless than one-half of the life of an iron ship. An iron ship is practically indestructible if she is kept off the rocks and is not allowed to touch bottom. An iron ship is taken out of water once a year, her bottom covered with paint, and she is put into the water again. Her lower yards are constructed of iron, her rigging is constructed of iron; and there are no repairs to be made on an iron ship unless she runs ashore. But a wooden ship, on the contrary, is all the time deteriorating. It requires repairs constantly. And the repairs on a wooden ship are an immense outlay, and a large deduction from the returns made on the capital invested in it. Now, we build no iron ships in this country. We build a few steamers for the coasting trade and for the foreign trade, the largest of which are in the line running from Philadelphia to Liverpool. But, practically speaking, we have no iron ship-building industry in this country.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any knowledge as to the cost at which iron steamships can be built here at present?

Mr. MARSHALL. I have no positive information in regard to that; but I have been told by Mr. Gaus, the vice-president of the Harlan and Hollingsworth Company, at Wilmington, that an iron ship can be built in this country almost as cheap, if not as cheap, as she can be built on the other side. While I do not mean to dispute his assertion, my own impression is that there is a difference in the cost, and that an iron ship cannot be built in this conntry as cheaply as on the other side; but she can be built very much cheaper than she could be built a few years ago.

The CHAIRMAN. If an iron ship can be built in this country as cheaply as she can be built abroad, would there be any impediment in our engaging in ocean navigation in competition with Great Britain so far as the cost of the ship is concerned?

Mr. MARSHALL. If iron ships can be built as cheaply here as on the other side, there is no practical impediment to an American ship-owner supplying himself with iron vessels; but I am very much in doubt whether iron ships can be built here as cheaply. The CHAIRMAN. I have seen the same statement as that made to you, and I confess that I also doubted its correctness, and it was for that reason that I asked the question. If any of these iron ship-builders will come before this committee and give evidence on this subject, their evidence will be received with great satisfaction; and if they cannot be got in any other way, we will subpoena an iron ship-builder in order to ascertain that fact, for it has an important bearing on the subject.

Mr. RICE. What is the comparative character of the work on an iron ship built in this country and on an iron ship built abroad?

Mr. MARSHALL. I am told that the work here is exceedingly good.

Mr. RICE. I have been told that the work abroad was inferior to it.

Mr. MARSHALL. I have not any definite knowledge on that point; but it is claimed by constructors of iron steamships that they can turn out a class of vessels equal to any built upon the Clyde. Whether they can do so or not I am not able to say.

The CHAIRMAN. There can be no reason in the world (I mean no reason in nature) why an American-built iron ship should not be as good as any other iron ship built abroad. It must be gross carelessness if she is not.

Mr. MARSHALL. No; I do not think there is any reason why in time there should not be an equalization of construction, and why we should not construct iron ships in this country as well and perhaps as cheap as they can be constructed on the other side. Another advantage which an iron ship possesses over a wooden one is that the carrying capacity of an iron ship is very much larger-I mean its carrying capacity so far as dead weight is concerned. That, of course, is another form of remuneration for the iron ship-owner which the wooden ship-owner does not possess. Iron ships now have, all over the world, a preference, so far as rates of freight are concerned. In California an iron ship will command from two and six pence to five shillings a ton for grain more than its American wooden competitor. So, taking all these things together the primary cost, the larger carrying capacity, indestructibility, and the du ration of life (so to speak) which the iron ship possesses-and adding to them the fact that an iron ship obtains preference in the rate of freight, all this constitutes an immense element in favor of the foreign iron ship-owner. And although to-day shipping interests all over the world are very much depressed, yet we see on the Clyde a considerable activity in iron ship building. Iron ships can now be constructed so cheap and the abundance of capital in England is so great, that persons of small means are putting some of their money into the building of iron ships, in the hope that the trade of the world will improve and that they will profit by their investment.

The CHAIRMAN. I have seen it stated that there are thirteen hundred steamers lying idle in England waiting for bidders. Have you any knowledge about that?

Mr. MARSHALL. I fancy that there are a good many. There is, of course, a great deal of unemployed tonnage in England. Many of the steamers, no doubt, that are not being run by their owners are of a more primitive kind, so far as economy of fuel is concerned and so far as the expenses of running are concerned, than the steamers

which are being constructed at present. The whole tendency on the other side has been in the direction of economy in running and enlargement in space allowed for cargo. Small consumption of coal and large space for cargo are the two elements which are most eagerly sought for by the Clyde ship-builders.

The CHAIRMAN. Now for the point which I asked you about originally: What object has a nation (independently of owning ships) in making its commerce absolutly free to all customers? Does it cheapen commodities? Does the consumer get them any cheaper by bringing all ship-owners to the same level and having no exclusive legislation?

Mr. MARSHALL. Undoubtedly he does.

The CHAIRMAN. Have our navigation laws interfered (in view of the general depression in the shipping business) with getting our business done more cheaply than it would have been done without them? I mean the ocean carrying trade.

Mr. MARSHALL. I think that the navigation laws have not interfered very extensively, so far as cheapening the transportation of commodities is concerned; because the field that would have been occupied by American ships has been filled by foreign ships; and, therefore, while the amount of tonnage of the world is largely increased, and while the amount of tonnage is about proportioned to the amount of commodities transported by it, still the great detriment that has ensued to the country has been in the decadence of its shipping interest, and in there being thus thrown out of employment a large number of people dependent upon commerce as a means of livelihood, and the freight given to foreign competitors.

Mr. RICE. Up to the time of the introduction of iron ships, and up to the time of our war, notwithstanding the navigation laws, our shipping was prosperous.

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes; and I accounted for that by saying that the material out of which we constructed ships was close at our doors, and that we possessed advantages in that respect over England, who had no material of easy access. England had to construct her wooden vessels at a disadvantage, just as we had to do in constructing iron vessels.

Mr. RICE. It was the introduction of iron, then, that, to a great extent, has made the change?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes; I ascribe it to the introduction of iron as a materia lin the building of vessels, together with other causes.

The CHAIRMAN. Assuming that we had had no navigation laws, would not the English have still done this business for us more cheaply than we could do it for ourselves?

Mr. MARSHALL. I think that, if we had no navigation laws, we should have gone abroad and purchased iron vessels on the Clyde, and in that way we would have had a merchant marine constructed of iron and not of wood.

The CHAIRMAN. Would not the war have equally taken that merchant marine from the ocean?

Mr. MARSHALL. Yes; the war would have been an equal adverse element in both

cases.

The CHAIRMAN. Then we have to take the state of things after the war. In that state of things, could the American capitalist, paying a higher price for capital, and higher wages to all whom he employs in business, compete in the open market with the English ship-owner?

Mr. MARSHALL. You mean if the navigation laws had been repealed? I think he would still have been at a disadvantage.

The CHAIRMAN. Take the navigation laws out of the way, and suppose that, at the close of the war, we had no navigation laws at all. Our capital, on the average, was worth 7 per cent., while English capital is usually worth only 4 or 5 per cent. at the outside; and then the cost of supplies and other necessary materials being dearer here than there, could we have competed with the English for the carrying trade of the ocean?

Mr. MARSHALL. We could have competed to a certain extent. We have competed since that time to a certain extent. We have built ships since the conclusion of the war. We have gone on competing with England, but at a great disadvantage. We would have had the same disadvantages if we had been permitted to go to the other side and purchase ships, which you have enumerated, so far as the high rates of capital and the difference in expenses in running vessels are concerned. But we would have had one great advantage in a cheaper fleet and in a more economical class of vessels.

The CHAIRMAN. Would not that class of vessels be displaced at this time through the great improvements that have since been made, and would we not have had on hand a useless stock of vessels ?

Mr. MARSHALL. No more than the English ship-owner has had. He has been obliged to accommodate himself to the improvements made in steamships, and his American competitor would have been obliged to accommodate himself to them in the same way. The CHAIRMAN. But we have not sustained the loss which the English ship-owner has sustained in having to replace his vessels.