New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-02-27
THE SHIPPING BILL DEBATED
Yrs RIENDS STILL CONFIDENT OF ITS Sue
CESS.
.r~ rxrrrrsTIyG DISCUSSION IN THE HOUSE IN
WHICH PLENTY OF POLITICS AP-
SPEECHES..
IBr TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUEE.I

~ UDllliNo 'NNHN' '' s
.oosure. Mr.. Hopkins, OF Illinois, who IS a RepuOlIc"
member Of the Committee on Merchant Marine E"o
the Democrats some encouragement by dchN''"'7
carefully prepared speech in opposition u Wo U'
Whether the speech made any converts on NV HVP"'
ucan side remains to be seen. The acuVe 'ri'n", "
the measure do not appear 10 nave 81 MY
confidence in its success. i.
Exactly what form the bill will ultimately assume -
II masses The House, it seems impossible TO iorelcl'
THE Senate passed two bills, one of which was senV !"
rbe House committee on Merchant Marine ana inc o'no'
10 the Committee on the POstOihce' Inc Ia''c
m;t,ee reported the senate bill without ameiuhleh'' '"'
II has since been abandoned as a separate measure ""I
some of its provisions have been incorporated '"'o ~
rrorosed House substitute for the Senate Tonnage OH.
rha democratic minority of the Committee on Mccciah'
,ar,re with the exception of Amos recon-
n.,aod q " free ship" bill. That bill, OF course 'a''o'
,ocome q law. at least within the next to !V"''
although probably it might he passed through '"o N"A'
House without much diffculty'
When the House went into Committee of the whore
Nr. Burrows, of Michigan. in the CHAIR LOT eenot"
dehat. q n the shipping bill Mr.. GrOsvenor. OF ONO
(who held the floor when the bill was last uhucI 'Ui
sideration), concluded his remarks In favor oi 'o
measure. The time which had elapsed since ne last
addressed the House, he said, had controVer'cu 'o
argument made by gentlemen on the o'hcr s'o 'N
the Mckinley Tariff law had shut out Q"
products from foreign markets ana foreign
from American markets. Time hhu "oho " "NN
for the Republican side Of the House and had accom-
pIlshed the triumphant passage of the shipping OIL.
Under the operation Of the Mckinley bill, as part "
the letter and spirit and purpose OF that onI' u.
United States had opened markets Tor many o"Sh0' Va
wheat and a good many barrels of pork
After a little sparring with Mr.. McMillln as to the
causes which led TO the recent RepuDIcah ueie"'' "i'
Grosvcnor said that the reason that lhc YIN
would be in a majority in the next House was that
49,. lod bean N instrumentation ana ml>ullItI-
standing of the Mckinley ill. To-day, in the markets
Of this country. the commodities thai entered into the
daily life of the people without a single cAcep'oHp
were cheaper than they were on the LIST of september
1890. and cheaper than they had ever been before
in the history Of the country. At the same time The
agricultural products brought better prices IMAM 'H9S
did at the close of the Lth Congress.
Mr.. Oates. of Alabama, inquired whether that was
true Of cotton.
Mr.. Grosvenor replied that he thought so, but was
not sure of it.
Mr.. Coleman, of Louisiana, intern ed to say that he
was authorltatively informed that since the passage
Of the Mckinley bill the price OF jutc bagginS ana
ties to cotton planters had been greatly reduced
Mr.. Vaux, Of Pennsylvania, asked Mr.. Grosvenor
whether. in the last canvaSses in Massachusetts and
Ohio. the Republican leaders had not asserted that they
did rot want a cheap and nasty condition OF unheS'
MIR. Grosvenor replied that he knew nothing about
what was claimed in Massachusetts,, bnt In ONO TIC
knew that the distinguished leader who had cut down
a Democratic majority of 5000 to less than 300 had
said that lie wanted no cheap article that was maze
cheap by the degradation Of the COMMON labor OF
the country. Republican applause) The congress
should take advantage OF the Mckinley blI ana sehu
American vessels. covered by the American flag, carry
Ing American products. to seek the markets OF the
world.
Mr.. Mills, Of Texas, opposed the bill and rldiculcd
the reciprocity policy of the present Administration.
y Lo I-ri,od Sta+a. wanted rccinpOcitV. WHY not
negotiate with England, France and Germany Now
the Republicans wanted foreign trade; a few months
ago they put up the bars against that trade. IN
order to do this, they wanted further TO fax the people
in order 10 send ships to foreign ports. The advocates
Of the bill wanted Ships. Why not build them 1t
was claimed that the Mckinley bill had cheapened the
cost of necessities. 1t had c~heapencd one thing. 1t
had clcapened the wages OF the American labOrer in all
parts of the country. democratic applanse)
Mr.. buchanan. Of NewJersey. submitted an argu-
ment in support Of the bill, and cOntrovertcd the
statement made by it, opponents that England paid
no subsidies. Great Britain, Germany. France and
other countries had in the past and did now pay
subsidies. They were paid in three ways: First. by
navment outright: second. under the euise of mail
nov. third. by the payment of money under what was
called the naval reserve plan. TIE thited states was
not doing its share Of the ocean carrying trade ana
all that remained for it to do t. secure that share
WIS 70 meet Ike with like. In conclusion. he quoted
I'm terms OF the NdTIl-cL NbHli' hNHh'A '''
speech delivered by secretary Window as to the Wis
dom of restoring the merchant marine.
Mr. UopkipS. Of Illinois. regretted that an attempt
had been made 70 turn this question into a party one
II was a National question and should be considered
as such. lie was opposed 60 The BILL, because TIC was
onposed to the policy Of subsidy. 1t would be as
well 70 nav a subsidy to the old stage in order to
mt IL i'm competition with the limited express as 10
subsidize the wooden ships that were made in Maine.
in order to put them in competition WIKI the great
steel steamers which traverscd the ocean. lie also
opposed the measure because that il merely temporl%ed
with a great subject 1t was against the policy OIL
the Government. and always should be, to take money
from the Treasury and pay it 10 a class OF persons
engaged in a private calling.
Mr.. Morrow, Of California, in supporting inc
measure, emphatically denied the declaration fire.
ouently made that the bill was being pressed by an
active lobby. If there was such a lobby, he had never
heard Of il. The legislation was requested by the
representatives Of the leading Commercial organizations
If the Pacific Coast. He did not look upon this measure
n. a partisan one, but as one that should be con
sidclcd on its merits.
Mr.. Gambler. of Massachusetts, spoke in favor Of a
proposed substitute authorizing the Po,tmasterGen-
o,al 10 enter into a contract for not less than five
o. more than ten years, with American citizens, for
tbe carving Of mails on American steamships TO
f,roion ports the Dominion OF Canada exccptcdl-thc
mail service to be Cquitably distributed among the
Atlantic. Mexican, Gulf and Pacific Coasts. The pend
ing bill, he said, was one that looked to d general
system Of bounty. A. a merchant, he protested
against the policy Of making profitable the business Of
. few at the expense Of many. The Government
could control the cOastwise trade. 1t could control
commerce among the States; but when it met foreign
ships on the high seas it did not meet with States.
but with nations; aud it must not shachle its own
merchants. 1t must give its merchants the same
freedom that the merchants Of England. France and
Germany enjoyed.
Mr. Mulkpn- of Maine manfred why the merchants
of Massachusetts, should be protected and not the ship
yards Of Maine.
Mr.. Gambler replied that he could answer the qleS'
ton. but he would not do 50, because 1t would be a
useless task % attempt 10 convince the gentleman.
He opposed subsidies because he believed they repre-
scented a vicious principle aN were not In accord with
business methods. His substitute, he said proAidcd
that any merchant should have the right 10 buy ships
l. .-....., u..-.ct I'm nrL.r IN do I'M. Lm,lne.. moro