San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1889-08-19
THE CARRYING TRADE.
Free Ships No Remedy for Its Re-
tention in ihiS Country.

Free Ships No Remedy for Its Re-
tentlon in his Country.
From the Boston Commercial Builetnl
The statement of the Philadelphia
Record, that if an American marine
could be established, large portion
of the S1l0 900, 0C0 now annually paid
to foreign steamships in the carrying
trade would be retained in the
country, is obviously true. The
advantages that would accrue
to the country from this saw
ing renders the restoration of the
American flag to the ocean most de-
sirable. The Record assumes that all
that is necessary to secure this result
is to repeal the present navigation
laws, so that American merchants
may buy ships abroad. 1t gravely
centuries up a series of melan chOly
events that VIII foil w the alter
native proposition OF sub yidies or
bounties out of the treasury.
The Record declares that the
money thus given the ship
owners would crush competition,
and the American merchant marine
would become the prey of monopoly,
and that the protiigate and corrupt
system of Government bounty would
create an ocean trust. In that fact
nothing in the shape of legislation
with which the American people are
menaced is SO dangerous as The pcOp)s-
ed bounty job.
1t is difficult to take such argu-
ments seriously. But in truth the
admission Of foreign built vessels to
an American registry even if desira-
BILE, would not meet the requirements
of the case. AS has been repeatedly
stated, 1t is not the additional first
cost of an American marine, and
this the Record, published in
close proximity to the great iron
ship-buiIding yards of the country,
should know. 1t is not wholly that
the wages and maintenance of the
crew of an American vessel cost
about 80 per cent more than on for
egn vessels, but from the fact that
foreign vessels are the recipients of
boun ties and subsidies from their
Governments that render it impos-
sible for an American vessel to sail
in competition, depending on the
freight money alone.
The decadence of American ship
ping is due, not to the protection prin-
ciple, but solely because protection
has not been extended to our mer-
chant lines. When the subvention
was withdrawn from the Collins line
before the war and it was LETT to COM
pete with the subsidized Cunarders,
the first blow was struck at the
American marine. Other powers
have not been so short sighted. Their
steamship lines have been established
and maintained by those payments
from the treasury that so disturb our
free-trade contemporary. England
has just granted a subsidy of $500, 900
per annum to the new Canadian line
to Liverpool and this is but an in
stance of her general policy. A boun-
W is offered to secure the construc-
ton of merchant vessels on plans APP
proved by the admiralty that will
almost pay the interest on the vessels
cost, and Italy and France also pay
their ships both tonnage and mileage
bounty.
How can American ships sail a
gainst such competitors unless they
are placed on the same footing as
their rivals. That the demand for
''free ships finds so little support
in merchantile circles shows that
its fallacy is recognized by
those most competent to Judge.
Again it is for the interest and pro-
lection of the country to develop a
large ship-building industry that we
may be independent of foreign yards.
This is an important element in /
the national defense, as was conclu,
sively proved during the civil war.
American builders Of iron and steel
vessels are establishing a reputation
for skill in naval architecture. Free
ships would mean destruction to this
important and growing industry, the
development of which should be en-
couraged.