Until the Mexican War, the country enjoyed peace. The Navy was employed in the suppression of slave-trading and piracy and in making voyages of exploration, whereby its assistance to shipping interests was continued. The Mexican conflict involved the merchant marine in very little danger and such naval action as was called for was principally in connection with joint operations with the army. The Perry expedition to the Orient, 1852-55, resulted in the opening of the ports of Japan, and illustrated the possibilities of utlizing the navy as an emissary of peaceful commercial development. The losses suffered during the War of 1812 appear to have had a salutary effect, for a constructive plan for the gradual increase of the Navy, adopted in 1816, with the approval of both political parties, was consistently pursued. A greater recourse to private shipyards was necessitated by the adoption of steam-vessels for naval purposes. Robert Fulton designed the first of these, which was placed in service in 1815. The United States was slow, however, to develop a strong steam navy. It was necessary to resort more to private contractors following the introduction of iron warships, the first of which, the Michigan, was launched on the Great Lakes in 1844. Thereafter the construction of iron steamships for war service, many of which were of an experimental nature, continued slowly. Opportunities lost in the Mexican War, "simply for lack of motive power more reliable than the winds, served as excellent object lessons to direct naval and public attention to the necessity of having a fleet of steam war-vessels," and contributed to the adoption and extension of the mail-subsidy policy. The subsidized vessels were constructed under naval supervision and were subject to purchase for war purposes. In 1860 the steam navy consisted of 34 vessels. The impetus given by naval demands to construction during these years contributed directly to the great prosperity enjoyed by the shipyards. "Some of the most eminent of the American shipbuilders were members of the naval construction corps," and a direct effort was made "to invite a healthful rivalry between naval constructors and civilian ship-builders by committing the building of some of the ships entirely to private enterprise." In such cases, navy engineers were detailed to superintend the work of construction. The machinery, however, was almost always manufactured outside of the Government yards, and the heavy demand for marine engines resulted in the establishment of a number of private plants. During the Civil War ship-building was given a temporary stimulus by the necessity which the Government was under of obtaining ships to maintain the blockade of southern ports, cope with privateers, carry on naval warfare, and cooperate in army maneuvers. Of the entire work of building vessels and engines for the Navy during the war, 84.5 per cent was done in private yards. The Secretary of the Navy, 'Bennett, The Steam Navy of the United States, I, 102. Ibid., 142. in his report for 1864, credited "the exigencies of the times and the necessities of war" with having "stimulated the inventive faculties of our countrymen to vast improvements in vessels, in engines," etc. The superiority of iron ships was clearly demonstrated during the war. While the Civil War stimulated the growth of the ship-building industry and resulted in an improved and modernized equipment of shipyards, peace brought a disastrous decline. For twenty years the American Navy was neglected, and the shipyards failed to receive even the moderate impetus afforded by naval construction during the years prior to the war, under the influence of which they had been built up. When the navy had fallen to a pitifully low ebb, and "repairs were no longer possible, for space for more patches was lacking upon almost every ship of ours then afloat," a naval policy was adopted which has aided the development of the ship-building industry. The first provision for the new navy was made in 1882, when the superiority of steel over iron was recognized. The delay was thus productive of some benefit, in that the construction of iron ships was in the main avoided. Progress was at first slow and considerable experimentation had to be undertaken. Almost all of the construction was done under private auspices. Shipyards on both coasts profited by the demand for a strong navy, but by far the greatest tonnage and the majority of the most important ships came from the yard of William Cramp and Sons, of Philadelphia, although the Union Iron Works, of San Francisco, and the Newport News Steamboat and Dry Dock Company were also awarded important contracts. The upbuilding of the Navy during this period is credited with having virtually started the steel ship-building industry of the country. Dr. Crowell presents an able summary of the effects of the national naval policy upon ship-building when he says:2 "The policy of the Government in building up a navy has created a condition favorable to the increase of commercial tonnage, rather than acted as the cause of this increase. Building of warships created plants prepared to turn out merchant ships. Between that and the actual building of a merchant marine lies a not very deep gulf, which progress in the iron and steel industries of the United States has gradually been filling up.' An entirely new era in naval history, ushered in by the SpanishAmerican War, had an immediately favorable effect upon the shipbuilding industry. In 1898 Congress appropriated $50,000,000 for national defense, and within a few months 102 vessels had been purchased, most of which had to be replaced by construction in American shipyards. 1Bennett, The Steam Navy of the United States, II, 772. 2" Shipping Industry of the United States; its Relation to the Foreign Trade," in Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance, Dec. 1900, p. 1391. The building of battleships and other war craft received so great a stimulus that, beginning in 1901, the tonnage of Government vessels far exceeded that of merchant vessels building at the seaboard. During several years, since 1901, the Government tonnage has been more than half the total construction, lake and seaboard combined. In 1912 the navy, as augmented by this construction work, consisted of an actual fighting force of 166 vessels, including 33 battleships. Practically all of the new vessels have been built at private shipyards, "principally because these industries should be encouraged, and the Government can thus profit by their experience and resources; and also because ordinarily the work is done more economically than at navy yards." Not only in construction, but in the making of repairs as well, have private shipyards profited by the liberal appropriations of recent years. SUMMARY. The history of American shipping policy presents great variations in the attitude of the Federal Government towards the merchant marine. In the early days of the Republic, when shipping interests were of great importance, an ultra-protective policy was adopted which was relaxed only after American shipowners enjoyed the greatest carrying trade in the world, and when American ship-builders were without a peer anywhere. It was then that the statesmen of the Republic introduced a liberal policy of reciprocal treatment with respect to tariff and tonnage duties, which has since been adopted throughout the world. The opening of American ports to foreign vessels on a basis of equality did not undermine the merchant marine; nor did any other governmental policy. The decline began only when economic advantages in ship-building were acquired by Great Britain, due to the change of materials employed in construction. A more favorable British policy provided an encouragement which, temporarily at least, appeared to give to British shipping interests a large part of the carrying trade formerly enjoyed by Americans. But no governmental policy could have stayed the forces which were at work to bring about the downfall of American shipping. The Civil War dealt the merchant marine a severe blow, and Congress has been criticized for its failure to meet the crisis by the adoption of remedial legislation. The tremendous expansion of the United States, which involved the opening up of the West by transcontinental railroads and the development of manufactures, attracted American interests from the seas and concentrated them upon home problems. There was no surplus population seeking employment elsewhere than at home, but on the contrary there was a demand for more labor at home, which resulted in a tremendous influx of immigration. Manu 1Report of the U. S. Secretary of the Navy, 1909, p. 20. factures required no foreign market, and only in recent years has an interest therein been awakened. There was thus in this country a general apathy toward foreign commerce and the carrying trade not shared by nations like England, which had colonies all over the world with which a constant, active connection had to be maintained, nor by other nations with manufacturing interests seeking an outlet abroad. So it is not surprising that Congress did not act, that it never adopted a successful shipping policy, that it failed to stay the decline in the merchant marine which followed the Civil War. The times have changed since 1890. The one-time "infant" industries of the United States have risen to a position where they can supply the home market and in addition compete for markets abroad. Foreign trade can be carried on more successfully when served by an ample tonnage of vessels operated under the national flag from the principal American ports to all the commercially important countries. The ships of foreign nations, especially the vessels which are operated in regular lines over established routes, are operated primarily for the convenience of home shippers, whose interests the vessel-owners prefer to develop. American exporters need more lines of American ships for the transportation of their commodities. The "free ship" laws of 1912 and 1914 are an indication that the old apathy towards shipping interests is giving way. It was in the Panama Canal act that this concession to shipping interests was first made, and the Panama Canal itself is serving to reawaken a public interest in shipping questions generally. The policy of protection for American shipping and ship-building adopted at the very outset-the reservation of the coastwise trade to American bottoms-still remains and is likely to be retained. It is mainly responsible for the American merchant marine of to-day and, together with the naval policy of the United States, for the American ship-building industry as it now exists. The Panama Canal, through the extension and connection of the American coast-line, will increase ship-building. There are, moreover, indications in the growth of the steel industry and lowered costs of production that the United States may eventually be able to compete with foreign builders in the construction of steel ships. All of these factors-the extension of national boundaries, the demand for foreign markets, the disadvantage to commerce of depending upon the merchant marine of business rivals, the opening of the Panama Canal, and the growing advantages enjoyed by American ship-builders, promise to increase the maritime prominence of the United States. CHAPTER XL. IMPROVEMENT OF RIVERS AND HARBORS AND REGULATION OF WATERWAYS. The first period of river and harbor improvement, 1789-1823, 319. Gallatin's plan, Few phases of governmental policy have given rise to so many questions of constitutionality and political expediency as has the improvement by the Federal Government of rivers and harbors. "Internal improvements" probably rank second only to the tariff among the economic questions to which public attention was directed during the first century of the national life of the United States. THE FIRST PERIOD OF RIVER AND HARBOR IMPROVEMENTS, 1789-1823. The first period of the improvement of harbors and inland waterways extended from 1789 to 1823, during which time the works were carried on largely by the State governments. At the outset the States, in conformity with colonial practice, took entire charge of such works of improvement as were necessary, and there was considerable hesitancy about delegating these functions to the Federal Government. The first evidence of a view that the control over interstate and foreign commerce given to the National Government by the Constitution entailed financial responsibility for the improvement and maintenance of water facilities is to be seen in the act passed in 1789, providing for the support, maintenance, and repair for one year of light-houses, beacons, buoys, and public piers by the United States. Provision for the continuance of this assistance was made conditional upon the transference of title to the facilities in question to the United States. Although the States did not immediately cede to the National Government the eight light-houses then in existence, Congressional appropriations continued to be made for their maintenance, and subsequent legislation included the "stakeage of channels on the sea coast" among the facilities for which the Federal Government undertook to assume responsibility. Thereafter appropriations were sometimes made for |