Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1896-09-21

| increase and perpetuate national pres
| perity.
| The Democratic national platform
adopted at Chicago, and the candidat,
| for the presidency there nominated
are alike silent upon the shipping qucs
ton. In response to an inquiry adj
dressed to the Democratic nominee To-
| the Presidency. as to his attitude upor
| the shipping question, his reply wa:
| that he stood upon his public utter.
| ances, but reference To his record has
SO far failed to disclose any expression
| whatever on the part of that gentle
| man on the shipping question. He has
| however. repeatedly and specifically
| denounced protection in any form, an,
| he has openly and persistently, unit
| now, advocated free trade, or the near
| est possible approach to it, 50 that
seems but fair TO assume that neitht
| he nor his party can be depended upon
to protect American shipping in III,
! foreign trade.
The platform adopted by the Indian
apolis convention of boiling Democrats
refers to American shipping ana advu
Gates modern and liberal policies t.
take the place of the restrictc,
statutes of the eighteenth century
The only statute OF that century whic'
has any hearing upon American ship
ping is the act of 1872, continuously i.
force ever since which denies Amer
can registry to foreign built ships
Americans may, if they choose. owl
foreign ships under Il foreign flag. |
Will he seen. however. that while thi
act is protective of American shin
builders, it gives no protection what
ever to American ships, or the owner
thereof, when in competition with for
ei2n ships. in the carriage of our for
eign commerce. We now have FREE
trade in the carrying of our foreiy
commerce. and this wing of Dcmocrac,
desires to extend free trade to the pur-
chase of foreign built ships Ere,
trade in the carriage of our commerc,
has already robbed our ship owners q
- per cent. of the carrying they enjoyed
under protection, and the remedy 70
the loss as offered by these Democrat.
IS Tree trade in the purchase of ShipS
They claim that if able to purchase tho
ships abroad, because possibly a trine
cheaper. our people could compete VIII
foreign shipowners. But recent Dem
ocratic official statistics show that il
cost a great deal more--between q and
81 per cent more in wages, and as higl
as 80 per cent. more in food-to run
american than it does to run foreic,
ships. How, then. with cheaper ships
but dearer crews. are Americans Il
compete With foreign cheap ships and
{ heaper crews? II is impossible with
out protection. And yet Americans are
at even greater disadvantage than tina,
caused alone by free trade. inaSmuch
as that foreign nations heavily sub
sidize both their shipbuilders and ship
owners. and. in some cases, gran,
bounties on tonnage besides Compe-
tition, under the circumstances. as on,
of carriage conclusively
shows is utterly impossible.
Our history shows that when we built
rhcaper, better and faster ships, for
eign ships nevertheless monopolized
our foreign carrying until protection to
our shipowners drove out foreign ship
owners. If cheaper ships would remedy
our maritime condition now. why did |
hey not do so over a hundred wears
igo? Protection was necessary to our
'ttNttSS lIltli do II Is HOW. Inc DfOIet- |
ion that brought success then will |
)ring success now if restored
For So years after the adoption of the
yet prohibiting the granting of Ameri-
an registry to foreign built ships, 80 |
'er cent. of our foreign commerce was
arried in our own ships. because the
discriminating duties policy protected
ur ships during all that time. If,
therefore,. that act is responsible for
ur maritime decay of today, why was
not also responsible for our mari
ime growth and greatness in the be-
inning and for Sc years after it's adop-
ion? This pertinent query Democrats
ave never attempted to answer.
The act prohibiting the registry of
oreign built ships has no effect upon
american shipowning, so long as our
hips are unprotected against foreign
as they now and for 6S