The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-11-11

Economist are in the main correct We
have not lost this lucrative trade because
we have not subsidized a few mail
steamers, but we have lost it simply be-
cause we have not followed the example
of all other nations in allowing our citi-
ZenS to compete at an equal cost of
ships with them on the ocean. 1t was
precisely this prohibition to which Sir
Albert Rollit referred when he said that
tenance. 1t is an argument have heard
a thousand times, and it stands to rea-
son and common sense that our policy
of restriction is a direct protection, not
only to British but to all other foreign
shipping interests.
EFFECTS OF PROTECTION.
The controversy which the Tribune has
ELECTED on the question of American
shipping may not at first blush seem to
concern the people of the inland states,
but upon further consideration it will be
| seen not only that it affects them and
others indirectly in the cost of the ar
: ticleS OF consumption all over the Union,
but it brings before them an example of
what would be the effect of a protective
tariff if carried out in its provisions to
| its legitimate conclusions. Indeed, there
| are not few of its fanatical apostles
who boldly assert that every article of
! foreign production should have the same
1 treatment that foreign built ships re-
| ceive-in being totally excluded from inn
portation. These advocates of home
market are perfectly. logical in their
reasoning. If it is right to exclude one
article altogether, it is right to exclude
! all. and if it is right to put a duty of
| 90 per cent. upon the average of them,
( 1t is right to put such duty on them
| all as would amount to prohibition. For
such persons the word commerce" has
! no meaning, and yet it is one of the sin
/ gular inconsistencies that they are the
ones who most strenuously urge the pol
! icy of subsidies for the purpose of build
ing ships TO carry away from US the
surplus of our products, and to bring
| ath it0cr ~, rotI1 hut coll bino
! foreign nations are expected to pay for
| them. If this system could be carried
out we should see that trusts" which
are sufficiently onerous as they are,
| full force that the Delaware shipbuilding
monopoly now applies it to ships.
1t is true that it cannot obhge our
countrymen to buy their ships for the
purpose of foreign trade, for the competi-
ton of foreigners who own ships at four
fifths the cost they would charge for
gaging in the business. But, to use a
/ western term, they ''cinch" all those
who must have ships in the coast1nS
trade. from which all foreigners are eX-
no argument to prove that in order to
make the business of these needlessly eX-
pensive ships profitable, their owners
must recoup by charging the shippers
higher freights, and they in turn levy an
! assessment on the community at large.
QUESTION CONDENSED.
The question may be condensed into
Shall the whole people be taxed so
enormously to obtain the, ocean carry ,1
| ing trade for some of them, or snall
those who wish to own ships be allowed
to tc,o freely vi import them until our domestic
ship-builders are forced by the Wholesome
stimulus of competition to rellng gu d
| Dart of their inordinate gains? 10 sum
IN the whole matter, we have the choice
of three methods: The abandonment OF
commerce altogether, the payment rent Ola OF an
eit me first has at least the merit of con-
sistency. the second is preposterous, and an
the last, that adopted by every maritime l11n,
nation on the globe excepting OUT OUT, o one
| commends itself to us as the only one
that is reasonable and just.
Soda Springs, Ida, Nov s.