The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-02-01


built aud owned wholly in the United
States. engaged in the foreign trade, tn G
sum of thirty cents per registered ton for
each one thousand miles sailed, aud pro
rata for any distance Travelled less than one
thousand miles on any voyage or voyages
between this and any foreign coun-
/ try or countries" This bill is
tie subsidy scheme which the Re
publican party has favored for long time
for reviving our shipping and increasing
our foreign trade and which the Democratic
party has steadily opposed. There is no
doubtthat our shipping has greatly declined.
Once we did nearly IS per cent of our
foreign carrying trade: now we do only
about Is per cent. of it. Our shipping was
nearly destroyed during the war of seces-
sion, aud it mas never been revived to any
great extent.
The Republican party insists that the
way 20 revive it is to pay subsidies to ships
wholly built and owned in this country and
| engaged in foreign trade. The Democrat
| party believes that the way to revive it is
| to reduce the tariff SO that ships can be
| built at less cost than at present, and TO
| modify our navigation Laws.
In support Of its position the Republican
party declares that the shipping interests of
England, France and Germany have been
built up by subsidies Ga The
other hand, the Democratic party asserts
| that the growth Of tho shipping interests Of
| those countries have not been promoted by
| subsidies A great deal has been said for
AMI against the subsidy plan, the discussion
Of it having extended over number of
years. The Democratic party, however,
mas been able to present such strong argu-
ments against it as to prevent its adoption
That party has made it quite evident that if
that plan should be adopted the taxpayers
would be sa1dled with heavy burden to
sustain special interest, and that, too.
without receiving any compromising advan-
tage.
As a matter of fact, England does not
help her shipping by subsidies. The Morn
ING NEWS some time ago called attention
to a statement Of Mr.. New, our consul gem
eral to London, in one of his recent reports
| to the stato department. Mr.. New cannot
be said TO favor the democratic view, be-
cause he is a republican, and upholds all
the policies of his party. In his report Mr..
New said: "The British government does
not grant subsidies, in the general sense of
that term, to any steamship company; but
| the postoice authorities make contracts for
the conveyance of mails to the different
ports of the world with the steamship COM
panies having steamers sailing TO those
ports.n Mr.. David A. Wells, than whom
there is no better authority, in one
of his articles on this question of
| building up our shipping
| by means Of subsidies, said: "In all her
history Great Britain has never appropri-
ated dollar for the purpose of aiding in
the construction and employment of a Brit
ish merchant ship, and no person can point
to single act OF parliament that ever gave
a bounty or subsidy for such purpose. In
short, all this artributing the maritime
prosperity of England to subsidies Is a con-
| cealment of truth that it is of the utmost
| importance for the American people to
learn, namely, that England is first In ship
ping because she is first in commerce, and
| she is first in commerce because she has
| freed her trade and her ships, While the
United States have shackled the one and
destroyed the other"
The subsidy law of France is very much
like Senator Fryes tonnage bill 1t was
| passed in 1881, ami gives her ship owners a
tonnage subsidy on both home built and
! foreign built vessels, the subsidy on the
latter being only half of that on the former.
1t also subsidies her ship builders. The
| New York N1ritime Register, speaking of
the results of this law, says: after several
years of heavy subsidy payments to the
home industry, the foreigner has still 60
per cent. of the French carrying trade. In
eight years of government support the
employment of the French mercantile
marine in tue French carrying trade has
not increased per cent" The expenditure
by France to build up her shipping has
been immense, and the result compare
lively Insignificant.
There is no doubt that the democratic
doctrine is the true one. Our navigation
laws should be greatly modified. They are
made to protect our ship-builders. Hence
the number of our ship-owners is limited
because they cannot get ships as cneaply as
foreign ship-owners can get them, and our
ship-builders cannot build ships in compe-
tition with foreign ship-builders, because of
the burdensome protective tariff laws.
The people are now heavily burdened to
sustain special industries. Why should
they have another burden placed upon them
in order that an effort may be made to
| build up another special industryl