On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
During the spring of last year there appeared in The London Times a series of fourteen articles on the subject of American engineering competition, written by a special correspondent of that journal, who had made a tour of the principal industrial centers of the United States for the express purpose of comparing American industrial methods with those in vogue in Great Britain. This remarkable series, which was re-published in consecutive numbers of the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN SUPPLEMENT, commencing July 21, 1900, was evidently the work of a thoroughly qualified observer. It created a profound impression upon British manufacturers, the most advanced of whom were already familiar with the broad aspects of a question, which was here more explicitly discussed. The influence of these articles upon the British press, however, was to arouse a considerable amount of heated and antagonistic discussion, the consensus of opinion being that the articles were altogether too pessimistic in regard to the future prospects of British trade. The author of the articles has recently commenced a second series, under the title, "American Engineering Progress," in which he undertakes to prove that his prediction of last year is already being fulfilled. The writer had predicted that the natural resources of the United States, the energy with which these resources had been developed, the splendid equipment of American steel works and the large scale upon which they were operated, would prove a menace to the British steel industry, whenever the slackening of the home demand in this country should leave a surplus product available for exportation. In the first article of this series, which will be found in full in the current issue of the SUPPLEMENT, The Times' correspondent states that there seems now to be dawning the period foretold, inasmuch as American makers are not only sending their surplus product to markets that are common both to themselves and Great Britain, but also are parrying the invasion into Great Britain itself. He quotes a Glasgow correspondent who, writing in November of last year, stated that steel rails continued to be very much depressed, since most of the export orders were being absorbed by American mills, at prices which British manufacturers could not at that time touch. At the same period, another correspondent, writing from Middlesbrough, stated that German manufacturers were offering plates at a price with which it was impossible for the home manufacturer to compete. While it is admitted that the British steel makers are aware of the threatened attack upon their natural market, and that they are doubtless taking steps to meet the invasion, there is a strong disposition, chiefly on the part of the press, to look upon the matter simply as a spurt due to a temporary disturbance of the balance of trade, while there is a prevalent opinion in England that no country heavily protectionist in its settled policy can compete with free-trade in Great Britain. The writer admits that there is much to be said both for and against the latter view, but at the same time urges that no effort should be spared by Great Britain to develop her resources to the utmost and bring her blast furnaces and steel-making trades to the highest pitch of excellence reached in the United States, Germany, or elsewhere. The Times' correspondent goes to the root of the matter when he says that a favorite method of avoiding the unpleasant admission that a very real crisis is at hand, is to point to the fact that the cry of calamity has been heard in England for the past three hundred years, one commentator on the articles on American engineering competition going back to the reign of Queen Elizabeth for a quotation to prove his point. In reply to these statements, it is pointed out that during the nineteenth century the development of the factory system, which in turn has been the result of mechanical invention, has caused the scepter of power to pass from the military to the commercial elements of the nation. A hundred years ago historians measured a country's success by battles won or lost, but to-day commercial supremacy is the first material essential to national greatness. Although it is still the "man behind the gun" who will decide the battle, the gun (and a very good gun, at that) must be there, and, for England, the ship to carry it, with all the marvelous complications of machinery that are essential to a modern fleet. It is pointed out that the racial characteristics which have enabled Great Britain to win battles are not necessarily those which furnish the best defense against commercial rivalry. From this statement the argument passes naturally to a second and more important aspect, in which the present conditions differ from those of the past centuries; this being the increased extent to which other nations are competing with Great Britain in the markets of the world. Nothing like it has ever been seen before, and yet it is more true to day than ever before that England must make and sell, or starve. In that distant period of Queen Elizabeth to which one of the critics of The Times articles referred, the English might shut themselves up in their island and wait for a Spanish Armada, perfectly secure, provided the Spaniard could not gain a footing on their shores. Foreign trade was a small matter then. The country could live without it. So it was, though in a less degree, almost up to a time within the memory of men still living. Rapid interchanges of knowledge, no less than of commodities, however, have leveled distinctions, making the conditions of the race for commercial supremacy alike for all. Great Britain was the first in the field, with a long start in the race. For the greater part of the nineteenth century America was busy peopling her undeveloped territory; Germany, as we now know her, did not exist, and the other manufacturing countries seemed willing to concede to Great Britain the role she had allotted to herself as the "workshop of the world." By the end of the nineteenth century national commerce had become a ruling factor in the extended prosperity that has fallen to all nations; and it is only during a comparatively recent period that other countries have made a determined bid for the share which Great Britain has held in the world's manufacturing industries. It is this which differentiates the present from the previous periods, and gives to the present crises a significance all its own.
