The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1891-01-08
TO ROB THE FARMERS.
Asked to Give &5,O0O,OOO to Few Ship
Builders.

Asked to Give HJ,OOO,OOO TO y rev snip
Builders.
WASHINGTON, Jan. lin the house Her
bert, of Alabama, opposed the shipping bill
because it proposed an indiscriminate sub
sidy to vessels of every character in foreign
trade. "It ID the natural result of the Nc
Kinley BILL" DinRley, of Maine. reviewing
the decadence of American shipping inter-
ests, said that in such condition as the
coualry now found itself. with only III per
cent OF the foreign carrying trade, with
Great Britain intrenched on every ocean
route, it was obvious that it was utterly out
of the power of private individuals. without
assistance in some direction, to dislodge the
shipping Of Great Britain. 1t was said the
bill would not do for our merchant marine
what was claimed for it. We could Judge
of that by what similar policy had done
for France, with less maritime people
than those of the United States. Within
five years from the establishment of n sub
sidy system the steam tonnage of France
doubled. With the widest extent
of coast known to any nation,
the United States could reap
benefit from subsidies far greater than any
other nation. Italy adopted subsidy
policy in 1886 and in four years her steam
marine increased 40per cent. The maxi
mum expense of the bill the first year would
be -, ,0OO, 600, of which all but 100000 or
$4,000 would come from postage and
tonnage duef. Taking the highest rate of
increase in tonnage intimated as result of
the provisions of the bill, and the greatest
amount OF expenditures that would be
needed in one year would be 8. 900. 600. after
which the rate of payment would steadily
diminish.
Dockery, of Missouri, said three causes
constituted an effectual barrier against any
attempt to restore the American carrying
trade: First, the difference of cost between
greater running expenses American vessels
were under, and third, the harsh aud re
strictive features of our navigation laws,
exacting heavy tonnage dues, consular fees
and other dues. Furthermore tho republi-
can policy of the exclusion of imports was
at war with the interest of the American
carrying trade. He opposed subsidies and
all other protection to special industries.
and asked Farquhar, chairman of the COM
mittee, how much the Pacific Mail Steam
ship company, which, at one ses-
SIOn he SAID, corrupted the
employees of the house. would get. Farqu-
har replied that it would get the same rs
all other steamship companies. Dockery said
that was no answer and asked if the Pacific
Mail stock had not risen OH the possibility
of the passage of this bill. Farquhar
warmly replied that if IL were 30 he WAS
glad of il, and hoped the stock of every
American company would increase in value.
Dockery retortirlR, said he wanted to tnke
the fact home to the farmers of the west
that $50O0.000 WAS being taken out of the
treasury to sustain and support New Eng
land ship owners. George Gould, he under
stood. was one of the .'laboring men" to be
benefited.
Dockery then invited attention to the
restrictive scope of the reciprocity advo-
Gated by Secretary Blaine. 30 far as the
farmer was concerned, n defect that was
fatal to the subsidy and was alike fatal to
reciprocity. The farmer could derive no
benefit from reciprocity. because the South
American countries produce almost every
article necessary for their own consump-
tion. Let the country return to that pro
picious policy under which ii explored
every sea and cast anchor in every harhor.
Diyested of artificial restrictions our mar
inc could renew and assert its Importance
on the deep.