The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-02-21

BRAZILIAN line OF steamships, the amend
ment to the Post Office Appropriation
bill providing for which was agreed to
at late hour Inst evening. The most
sensible and sagacious of the various
amendments which were offered and voted
down was that of Senator Eaton, giving the
subsidy not to american built ships" but
to ships ''owned by American citizens.
The drift and purpose of thisamendmentw was
quickly caught by Senator Blaine, the
foremost champion of the Roach subsidy.
Mr.. Blaine promptly charged that it was an
attempt to give American registers to for
eign built ships, and Mr.. Eaton, Of course
frankly admitted that that was his pur-
pose. There was no reason why he should
disguise it. proposition ever offered in
the Senate is more de.ensible on grounds
of policy or economy than the unsuccess-
full amendment of Senator Eaton. Even if
it were conceded that the granting Of a sub
sidy is good policy, the amount Of the
subsidy lisa fair question for discussion. If
subsidy is proper it should be admitted
that the subsidy ought not to be larger
than is necessary for the successful estab-
lishment Of the Brazilian line Any line,
in order to be successful, must pay
expenses and earn profits. The purpose of
o subsidy is to make up the losses which
might be incurred by steamship line to
Brazil. It is for the interest of the Treas
ury that the loss to be made up should be
as light rs possible ; but the amount of loss
will depend upon the cost Of the steam
ships The smaller the cost of the outfit
the less will be the amount OF the SUBJ
sidy required tor reimbursing the losses
Of the company. If the company is re-
stricted to expensive American built ships
the cost of keeping up the line must neces-
sarily be greater than if the company were
at liberty to buy ships in the cheapest mar
kets. Why should the Treasury be depleted
to make up the difference between dear
ships and cheap ships?
For whose benefit should Brazilian line
of steamships be established? Not certainly
for the benefit of John Roach and his ship
yard, but for the benefit Of American COM
MERGE Government assistance to such
line is absurd and indefensibe except
as a means of increasing our trade with
Brazil, by affording direct communication
and cheap freights. Cheap freights are
the natural consequence Of cheap ships.
IT the Treasury is to step in and save
Brazilian line from loss it should pay no
more than is necessary for keeping open
direct channel of trade 1t should not, in
addition to what is necessary for this pur-
pose, pay heavy bounty or bonus to John
Roach for his individual advantage. A
cheap steamship line to Brazil would need
but small subsidy, but the expensive
outfit which would be rendered necessary
by taking John Roach's ships ct his own
valuation would enormously increase the
amount of the subsidy. Why should the
people be taxed for the benefit of John
Roachp Why should not the cost Of Bra
lillian line be made as small as possible
with q view to diminish the amount Of the
subsidy, if o subsidy is deemed expedient
as a means Of promoting our trade with
Brazil? Why should the Treasury pay the
difference between the cost of John Roach's
ships and the cheaper ships which can be
purchased in the general markets of the
world?
The proper thing to be done is to permit
citizens of the United States to buy ships
in the cheapest markets and sail them
under the American flag. The question of
subsidies should be an after consideration.
IT. with the diminished cost of outfit, n line
to Brazil could not be established without
a government subsidy, the garment could be
cut according to the cloth-that is to say,
the subsidy could be proportional to the
minimum expense Of the projected line
It should all be given to the necessities Of
commerce, and none Of it to increase the
profits of q grasping American shipbuilder.
Give us free ships first in other words,
give us cheap ships first, and then make
up the losses of new lines by subsidies. if
subsidies shall be found necessary otter ex-
penses are so greatly diminished.
Mr.. Blaine sailed into the debate when
Mr.. Eaton had offered his amendment, and
acclaimed against permitting foreign
competition with American shipbuilders.
But what was Mr.. Blaine's argument? It
was simply o parade of the employment
given and the wages paid to mechanics in
American shipyards Can man of
Mr.. Blaine's intelligence be ignorant that
q ship cannot be purchased by Americans
without giving employment to American
labor? If foreign ships we're permitted to
be bought they would be paid for in the
products of American industry. The
foreign owners would not give away their
ships, but sell them. If cotton grower in
vests the profits of his business in nm
English built ship. that ship is as much
product of American industry as
plantation. The money which constitutes
its price is earned by American labor, and
five hundred hands employed in growing
cotton are rs much entitled to consideration