The Struggle to Launch Seattle’s Shipbuilding Future
A century and a half ago, Seattle’s local editors argued that the city’s vast timber resources should have made it a global marine power, but capital and labor were held back by East Coast monopolies.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
A few years ago, it was demonstrated by the San Francisco Board of Marine Underwriters that a new loft of one thousand tons could be built $20,000 cheaper, as regards the single item of timber, on Puget Sound than on the Atlantic Coast—the figures being $12,000 against $32,000—a clear saving of four-fifths in that principal item. Nevertheless, the progress of shipbuilding in our ports is much slower than it should be. A mere annual increase in the number of keels laid—a little improvement in the average dimensions—is all that the records have to show. Yet it should be able to boast the monopoly of the marine construction and repairing of the coast.
One advantage of the Sound construction over San Francisco is that as soon as a new vessel is ready for sea, she can have a down freight of lumber at $4.50 per M without setting out on a cruise in search of a cargo. This alone would go far toward defraying the cost of fitting up for return freight. She could bring up dry goods and other merchandise at three or four dollars per ton instead of purchasing ballast. On account of our economic facilities, goods should be about as cheap here as in San Francisco, because rents are lower, also taxes, insurance, drayage, wharfage, water rates, fuel, etc. All these things will tell in favor of the Puget Sound builder.
There are, however, various facts to retard the growth of this interest here, among which are the advantages of established yards and invested capital in the East. It has been the practice to some extent to transfer superannuated crafts that are not considered safe risks against the bluff gales of the Eastern coast, and become unprofitable there, to fill out the measure of their usefulness in the peaceful mining trade of the placid Pacific. Our winter gales gradually thin these out, but they continue to come. What we need to effect, if possible, is an entire change of front for this industry. Economy dictates that instead of the decimated forests of the Atlantic being further drawn on for the supply of the national marine, the inexhaustible pineries of this Northwest coast should be the seat of the business.
The greater cost of the metal work and rigging here only offsets the great saving in timber to a very slight degree. The difference in the cost of labor is a greater drawback, but we regard it as one that will regulate itself. The higher pay for work is an attraction for workmen that will draw them to our shores, and the law of competition will in time operate to bring about an equitable adjustment.
“Economy dictates that instead of the decimated forests of the Atlantic being further drawn on for the supply of the national marine, the inexhaustible pineries of this Northwest coast should be the seat of the business.”
The 1876 editor’s frustration with Seattle’s missed industrial potential mirrors contemporary debates about Seattle’s reliance on 'imported' tech capital versus cultivating local, sustainable manufacturing. The call to move away from being a terminal for 'superannuated' East Coast scraps remains a recurring theme in the city's quest for economic autonomy.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.