New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-02-07
upon tho subject than whole volume Of arguuen-


tatioD.
For our part, we consider the whole scheme Of
subsidizDg steamship lines, to run TO any part of
the world whatever, false in principle and PERM
cous in practice. We go for the general system Of
protection. We believe in shielding and sustaining
our own industry wherever 1t can be wisely done;
but we are for no special and individual protection.
We may fairly deny TO foreigners participation in
our coastipg traffic We may fairly protect the
whole shipping interest against foreign competi-
ton, where we deem it expedent to do so. Butall
shipowners, whether their ships be. run by steam
or by canvas, should stand on exactly the same
footing, No one man should have any Advantage
over any other mpp. This is broad aud solid
principle whose application must irure to the ben
eft of the national industry II will create
healthy stimulus an individual rivalry, that carries
forward the national development But any serious
deviation from this principle, such es selecting from
among the mass of our shipOwners one, two three,
or half dozen of them, or more, and giving to
them special grants and gratues for certain specl-
fed service in which others cannot compete infcts
double wound. In the first place, it strikes an
insdious blow at the general principle of protec-
ton. In the second it seriously damages the whole
branch of industry from which the recipients of
these special favOrs are taken. For what can
DO palmer than if half dozen ships running
between New-York and Liverpool each receive
ten thousand or twenty thousand dollars gratuity
from the Government, for every trip they make,
that they have monopoly of freight carrying and
passenger transportation on that line No ship can
compete with the subsidized vessels; for rivalry is
extipgushed as soon as attempted, by lowering
rates below paying prices, and drawing on the
bonus paid, to reimburse the temporary loss. Every
shpowner running vessel on his own account, is
thus driven away from traffic in which ne is le-
ultimately entitled to participate. We thus see
that the subsidy or gratuity, in whatever
form or for whatever purpose it may be given,
operates as perpetual damage and encouragement
to the entire interest to which the subsidized par
ties belong.
AS to the example of England in running postal
steamers to all parts of the world we have to say
that her circumstances are very different from
ours: and if they were not the fact that she sets
bad example is no reason why we should follow it.
But the great fact in the case of England is that
she has vast colonial possessions that necesstate
large navy, and her postal ships are a branch OF
that service, and, when wanted, are Withdrawn
from it and put to warike uses. This was done
extensively in the var with Russia. But even her
expenditure on this head is seriously questioned at
home, and it is matter of doubt how long the
system will last We cannot see that we need OBJ
iect to it, except so far as it initiates against our
own navigation interest. Where it does this we
think it would be perfectly proper to guard against
such mahgn influences by counteryailng legislation.
But, as general thing it is very convenient
arrangement for our commercial interests to have
Great Britain willing to defray the expense of
transmitting their correspondence over the globe,
and one of which we ought not to make the least
complaint. We at least need not have any scruples
on the ground that England is thereby fostering her
naval foroo 20 d;saarantaBo. It is no part Of
our policy to rival any of the great Powers in that
respect