But the editorial on page 4 today adds facts to their fantasies and sucks hot air out of at least one of their improbable balloons.
from the editorial on page 4:
- "Unanswerable statistics show that the scepter of the seas, which ten years ago was nearly ours, is again passing into the grasp of England.
The steam navy of England is driving not only our sailing-vessels, but our steamers also from the Atlantic Ocean.
The operation is gradual, but steady.
In the year 1857, out of forty-two steamers plying between this country and Europe, eleven were Americans, and thirty-one English, French, or German; in the year 1859, out of forty-six steamers plying regularly across the Atlantic, only five were American and forty-one were foreign.
In other words, in two years the steam service across the Atlantic increased ten and a half percent; but in the same period the foreign steamships on the route increased thirteen percent, while the American steamships declined over fifty percent.
"In seeking for the causes of this palpable defeat of our steamship-owners by foreigners, we discover that British ship-owners enjoy a marked advantage in a regular subvention by the British Government.
That Government sagaciously devotes a large sum annually to the maintenance of the Cunard line of steamers.
The Cunards can afford to carry passengers and freight at cost; the money they receive from the English Government in the guise of mail-pay, affords a handsome dividend on the capital invested by their owners.
This places them in a position far superior to that of any American line.
A smaller advantage is enjoyed by the Canadian line, which receives a similar annual aid from the Government of Canada.
Other lines -- the screw line from New York to Liverpool, the Galway line, and others-likewise receive aid, in one shape or another from the British Government.
The statesmen of England long ago came to the conclusion that a few hundred thousand pounds would be well invested in driving American steamships off the Atlantic.
How well they have succeeded the figures given above sufficiently prove.
"Our Steamships received nothing but a bare remuneration for transporting the mails from port to port.
There was a time when Congress paid a large subsidy to the Collins steamers.
Unhappily Mr. Collins and his associates had neither the sagacity nor the moderation which were requisite to retain the boon.
Instead of relying on the patriotism and sagacity of Congress, it is loudly asserted that they undertook to buy up members and newspapers; and, as was to be expected, the result was the loss of their annual grant.
An oder of corruption and roguery hung round the line to the day of its death.
It was badly managed, badly officered, and badly engineered in every way.
If Mr. Collins had been content with the same allowance as the Cunard vessels receive from the British Government, and if he had forborn to seek that by scheming and intriguing, he would have enjoyed it still, and the line would still have been in existence.
"However, we may let by-gones be by-gones.
The question is now, shall anything be done for the salvation of our steam navy?
We, in this journal, have always taken the democratic ground that Government subventions to lines of steamers were wrong in principle, as partaking of the fatal protective system.
We hold that if the steamship business be good and profitable, our people have enterprise enough to engage in it; if it be not good and profitable, it is a waste of time and money to tax the people at large to make it so.
But in this case a distinction must be drawn on national grounds.
High national reasons forbid us to suffer the dominion of the Atlantic Ocean to pass into the hands of Europeans.
In the event of war, the vast preponderance of Great Britain's steam navy would place this country at great disadvantage..."
Second, the editorial reminds us of other statistics which show that, including all US imports & exports, over 90% was carried on US owned ships by 1825, but that fell to just 2/3 by 1860 and to less than 1/3 by 1866, continuing to fall thereafter.
Point is: the building, owning & operating of ocean-going ships was less & less the focus of US capital investors.
There was more reliable profit to be made investing in railroads and cotton plantations.