Lexington weekly intelligencer. (Lexington, Mo.) 1871-1887, 1881-07-23

Ii man should refuse to
carry II carting business unless he
could make his own wagons, it would
be such reflection on his good sense
that his business credit would be
very lew. II some Americans could
buy and sail ships 80 as to make pro.
fits. what is the sense of saying that
they shall not do it, because come other
Americans cannot build ships at .
profit Only one answer to this
question has ever been. offered by
anybody. and that is the prediction
that, some day, if we go without
ships long enough, we shall, by the
mere process of going without. be-
gin TO get some-a prediction for
which the prophets give no guaran.
tee, in addition to their personal au.H
thority, save the fact that we have
fewer ships aud worse snes every
year. iE s...-i
have said above that,if there were
no restraints or interfereuces, We
should simply notice whether any
Americans took to the carrying trade
or not, and should thence infer that
they might or might not be better
employed in some other industry. 1t
is impossible, now, to say whether.
il all restrictions were removed, the
carrying trade or ship-building would
be profitable industries in the United
States or not. Any opinion given by
anybody on that point is purely spec
ulative. The present state of the iron
and steel industries, aud of the man
ufacture of engines aud machinery,
ia 80 artificial that no Que can judge
whet would be the possibilities Of
thnsn inHrp trio nd . iro1 " hff.
.ferent state of things. 1t is, however.
just because the present state Of things
prevents free trial that it 10 inde-
fensible. We are working in the dark
aud on speculation all the time. We
have none of the natural and proper
tests aud guarantees for what we are
doing. '-- w Si'i .. j.t..' l ~
Whenever the question Of ships 10
raised, the clamor for subsidies and
bounties Is renewed, ana we are told
again that England has established
her commerce by subsidies. 1t would.
be we'll if we could have an UNDER
standing. once for. oil, whether Eng.
lands example is good argument or
not. As she has tried, at some time
or other, nearly every conceivable
economic folly, and has also made e1-
pertinent of some sound economic
principles, all disputants find facts to
suit them in her history, and it needs
: only certain easily acquired skill In
misunderstanding things to fashion
any required argument from, the
economic history OF England. Some
of our writer's and. speakers seem to
be under fascination which, impels
them to accept as authoritative ex-
amples the follies Of English history,
aud to reject its sound lessons. Id
the present case, however, the. matter
, stands somewhat differently EsK.
land is great manufacturing tewn,
1t imports fsod and raw materials,
!, and exports flushed products. It
has, therefore, . general and public
interest in maintaining communica.
ton with all parts of the world. The
analogy in our case 10 furnished by
, the subsidized railroads, in our new
states, or, perhaps even better, by
the mail routes, which We sustain all
/. over our territory ,cfr0M general con,
siderations of public advantage. al.
though many such routes Aosnot pay
= at all. Subsidies 70 ships for the mere
: sake of having (ships,sor ocean tra4lc,
! when there was no business occasion
. for the subsidized 1lipes, would have
y no analogy with English subsidies.
1t then the question is put, Shall
= Americans own shfpS1 1 do not see
. how any one eau satoid the simple
. answer, Yes; If they want them. I'm
iversally, if an American wants Any.
thing, he ought to- have 1t, II he can
yet 1t, aud If he h0rts no ono else BY
. gettiDgit. To enter on the question
;, whether he is going 10 make It or buy
1t, aud whether he is going to buy i
of A or of B, is an impertineiice. We
. =. boast q great deal Of having . free
g country. Our, orators shout tbem-
). dom. Stop one of8them, however,
J. and ask him if he means free trade
:. aud free ships,- and he will demur
s No !; not that. That will not do. He
i is in favor of freedom for himself aud
|. his friends IN those respects in which
they want liberty against other peo-
Y pie but he is not in favor Of frsedsm
for other people against restraints
>. which are advantageous to him aud
J.. his political allies. He 10 in favor Of
II freedom for those who are being t0p.
: pressed-by somebody else; not for
i those who are being oppressed BY
9 himself. heard il asserted not long
ago that we have mo monopolies il
II this country, because it is . free csun-
: try. 1t is not free country, becaas6
y there are more artificial moHOpoliee
Il i'll it than in any other country in
e the world. The popular notion that
}. it is free rises from the fact that thsrl
II are fewer natural limonopolies ia Il
o than in any other great civilized conn:
try: 1t is necessary. however. to "a
e to Turkey or Russia to find instances
I Of legislative aud sdministrstlys
j. abuses to equal the existing laws aud
Y regulations Of the United SsatSS
Q about ships. the carrying trade, aud
} foreign commerce..