The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-02-19

the interest Of John Roach's shipyard has
many prodigal things are commonly done
during the hurried closing days Of ses-
sion that it is prudent to reserve our con-
CALCULATIONS and ''not halloo till We are out
of the woods" subsidy for Brazilian
line of steamships has been engrafted on
the Post Office Appropriation bill IN the
Senate, and it is possible that the bill may
pass the Senate with that amendment. But
when it goes back to the House for
concurrence We are confident that the
amendment will be rejected The result
will be a committee of conference, and the
appointment Of its members on the part OF
the House will be q pretty severe test OF
the political virtue of Speaker Randall.
We have no distrust of the Speaker, but
the facts that he has Pennsylvania con-
stituency, that John Roach is Pennsyl-
vania citizen, that Roach's shipyard is
Pennsylvania establishment, will make q
firm discharge of his duty by Speaker Ran
dali an act Of moral and political courage.
All that can be reasonably asked Of him is
that he will exhibit no pro-subsidy bias, and
constitute the House part of the committee
Of conference fairly-that is to say, with
due regard to the relative anti-subsidy and
pro-subsidy strength in the House. During
the four years of democratic control in the
lower branch Of Congress it has been the
protested, and we have no doubt the sincere,
aim of the democrats to lay the foundation
for RI ha NJ IN
retrenchment and economy. In spite Of mis-
takes on other points the democrats of the
House have been reasonably faith .ul to this
aim, and they cannot afford now, with
Presidential election SO near, to belle and
forfeit the best part Of their record. No
man in public life has a truer appreciation
of the value Of this record than Speaker Ran
dali, and weare convinced that he is the last
man OF his party who could be induced by
local influence to throw away so great an
advantage. We trust that the Senate amend
ment which engrafts the Roach subsidy on
the Post Office Appropriation bill has no
chance of success in the House. Mr.. Roach
will be sent back to his shipyard with
flea in his ear" to form plans for a renewal
OF his application in the next Congress.
In the present Congress the contest
between subsidies and free ships is likely
to prove drawn battle. We think there
has been considerable growth of opinion
in favor of giving American registers to
foreign built ships of bona fde American
ownership. The battle will be fought
out in the next Congress, with at
least partial victory on the side Of
free ships. It is not improbable that we
may continue to give American shipbuild-
ers o monopoly of our vast coasting trade
for quite period after we allow the Tree
purchase of ships to be employed in foreign
commerce. The Parliament Of Great Britain
pursued similar course. Foreign built
ships were admitted into its foreign regis
try several years before they were allowed
to participate in the British coasting trade !;
and it may also be expedient for us to make
no changes in our coasting trade for o long
period to come. Even il the palmiest days Of
our navigation interest, in the period before
tho civil war, when our shipping seemed on
the point of equalling thar of Great Britain,
when our flag futtered upon all the seas and
entered all the harbors Of the globe; even then
our -coasting tonnage very much exceeded
our tonnage employed in foreign COM
merce. The disproportion is altogether
greater now, and it would be simply absurd
to pretend that the art of shipbuilding is
in danger Of dying out in this country SO
long as our naval architects retain their
monopoly Of the coasting trade. We are
quite willing that our immense coasting
trade should remain on its present footing
while we try the experiment of tree ships in
our foreign commerce.
In order to form a correct judgment on
this subject we must keep close to the facts
Of the situation, and must discriminate be-
tween things which are different in their
| nature. In spite of some superficial points
of resemblance the distinction is very
broad between our coasting trade and our
foreign trade. It is true that only American
built ships are entitled to the protection of
our government in either, but the analogy
ends here. In our coasting trade-that is,
upon all our great lakes and numerous
navicable rivers, as well as on our long
lines Of occan-washed and guli-washed ex-
ternal coasts-no foreign built vessel can
carry pound of freight between one Ameri-
can town and another. But in the foreign
trade there is no such monopoly. The fact
that we do not permit our citizens
to purchase foreign ships does not in
the least interfere with the transportation
of our exports and imports in foreign bot
toms. Hence the utter absurdity of the
restriction. In order to make this anti
quated policy, to which we SO blindly
adhere, consistent, we should put our for
eign trade on tho same footing as our coast
ing trade, allowing no freights to be car
ried from or brought to our ports except in
American bottoms. Nobody contends for
such q bonighted policy as this [; but it is