Los Angeles daily herald., 1888-02-19
Boston Ship-Owners Criti'
else the Proposition.
no PAY TONNAGE DUTIES.
The Plan Of the American Ship
ping and Industrial League
Would Cost the Country
ct Least $1OO,OOO,0O0.


along Commercial street and Atlantic
avenue. The general opinion, al
cleaned by the HcralRs reporter, wal
that, should Congress follow the re
commendation Of the League, the bill
passed would draw from the Treasury
3lOo, o,OOO, 600 per year. Mr.. E. G,
Richardson, the head of the Boston
and Savannah line Of steamers, who
not only is the principal owner OF the
coast line, but is also largely interested
in vessels in foreign trade, was shown
the dispatch in the Herald that gave
the result Of the meeting Of the
League, and asked his opinion OF the
propositions contained therein. The
dispatch in question contains this
resolution:
Resolved, That in the opinion Of this Con
ventiOn the passage of the following bill by
Congress viii promptly restore our ocean an
that there shall be paid out OF moneys III
the Treasury of the United States, not other
wise appropriated, to any vessel, whether
sail or Steam built and wholly, owned In
the United States. engaged in the foreign
trade, the sum Uf 30 cents per registered ton
for each 1000 miles and pro rata for any
distance travelled less than 1000 miles or
any voyage or voyages between this and any
foreign country or countries.
This, it will be noticed, differs from
Congressman Whitthorne's bill only in
giving the 30 cents per ton to all YES
sells, whether steam or sail, and deny.
ing the assistance to coastwise vessels.
lis there any reason" was asked of
Mr.. Richardson, "why coastwise
steamers should not receive subsidies
rs welF as outside vessels?"
"None whatever" was the answer
"But, while should be very grateful
to Congress or anybody that would
confer so large sum upon my line as
20 cents per ton per 1000 miles, as
proposed by the Whitthorne bill, do
not believe in subsidies. l saw it
stated in the Herald the other day
that 20 cents per ton per 1000 miles
travelled would entitle our two YES
sells in the Savannah trade to
$50, 900 a year. This would be
a great help, and yet why should that
trade not be left upon its own footing.
OF course, if the naval reserve idea is
to be carried out and coastwise steam
ers are to be built, of great speed and
strength, suiting them for cruising
and transport service in time Of war,
they should be subsidized. But as it
is, no foreign vessel can compete in
the coast trade, and the business is
entirely governed by the law of sup
ply and demand"
snow, how about foreign trade? 1t
is computed by reliable parties that
q 80 per cent per ton subsidy for every
1000 miles sailed by all steam and
sail vessels clearing to and entering
from foreign ports would mean the
paving out Of $100, 100000 to ship
owners. What would the country get
back for this immense sum-"
Speaking candidly as q citizen,
and without allowing my shipping in
terests to influence me, / will say
that the idea that the amount we pay
out annually for freight is lost to the
country is fallacy. Say that Ameri-
cans pay to freight-ship owners $780,
600, 600 q year for freights Chat is
about the amount that it is stated they
do pay out), that does not mean that
American merchants have thrown
away that immense sum. 1t means
that the merchants have paid out
500, 100000 for legitimate expense s,
that should no more be called loss
than drayage, insurance or clerk hire.
That sum does not represent profit
to the foreign-ship owner-not by any
means. Out of that 500. 900 900 the
foreign ship owners must pay expen-
ses, and / tell you that in many cases,
it means positive loss. I know that
most Of the steam tramps that have
been freighting to this country have
been run at loss. Look at the great
English transatlantic steamship COM
panies-they have not been paying.
The Cunard line has not paid profit
for some years. So all this means
that the freight business does not pay,
and the United States is letting En-
gland run the business at loss."
Then you think that the shipping
interest shoul be governed BY pre-
cisely the same laws of supply and de-
mand and competition as any other
trader"
'IPrecisely. We once owned the
xreatest merchant marine in the world,
and our flag was seen on every sea.
So long as it paid Americans held SUI
premacy. When it ceased to pay
our ship-owners laid up their ships.
The proposition before the country is,
Will it pay to build ships I o be run at
. loss, and to compete for freights,
when there are already more vessels
afloat than are required for the trans
portation Of freights? Will it pay,
Say, to make up this loss and help pay
the difference / know that my ideas
are not palatable, and / am moi
anxious to give them prominence"
eff freights paid, would American
ships be built and placed in competi
toni"
"Undoubtedly. OF course, we can
not run our ships as cheaply as ths
English-the mere question Of wages
settles that. But you can't legislatt
wages. Wages in American ships will
always be the highest in the world
OF course, a subsidy would induc'
more ships to carry our flag and in
crease the trade, and it would alst
ratify American pride. If you asl
me what is the sentimental view,
would tell you that great merchan
marine, with an ample subsidy, il
popular; but the popular idea is no
always the sound and expedient one.
A gentlemen who did not wish tina
his name should be used, pointed Gu
that the American Shipping League
proposed bill is as loose as the Whit
horne bill. The proposition to pa,
mileage to every vessel, whether sal
or steam, that makes regular or oc
casional voyages to foreign port,
means that the lake steamers which
nil to Port Arthur, in Canada, an(
the ferry-boats that cross to am
Canadian port on the lakes, and al
the lumber schooners sailing be
tween British Columbia ports and thu