The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1896-10-03

ia" turning over OF that vast sum. an
nuaily, to lhuse employed upon our
farmS. in our mines. our forests. our
mills, our factories. and In every indus
ny and in every part of the United
States. And to S,,eGd the $500 .OoD
among American workmen Instead of
as now. almost wholly uuOn foreign
workmen, would enormously increase
and perpetuatr national prosperity.
TIL" Democratic National platform.
adopted at Chicago. and the candidate
for the presidency there nominated. are
alike silent upon the shipping question.
In response 10 an inquiry addressed to
the Democratic nominee for the piesi-
dency as to his attitude upon The ship
ping question. his renly was that he
stood upon his public uttcrancas. but
reference to his record has so far failed
to disclose any expression whatever on
the part of that gentleman ON the ship
uing question. lie has. however re-
peatedly and specifically denounced
protection in any form, and he has
openly and persistently. until now. adj
vOcated free trade, on the nearest pOsr
sibe approach to it. so that it seems
but fair to assume that neither he nor
his party can be depended upon to pro-
tect American shipuing in the foreign
trade.
The platform adGnted by the Indian
apolis convention of boiling Democrats
refers to American shipping and advO-
Gates modern and liberal no.icies," to
take the place "of the restricted sta
tutcs of the eighteenth century" The
only statute of that century which has
any bearing upon American shipping Is
the act of 1902 continuously IN force
ever since. which denies Amstc$i reg
istry to foreign built ships americans
may. II they choose. qFUHoreign ships
under a foreign flag. 1t will be seen,
however, that while this act is protec-
tive of American shipbuildcrs. it gives
no protection whatever to American
ships, or the owners thereof. when in
competition with foreign ships, in the
carriage of our foreign commerce. We
now have free trade in the carrying Of
our foreign commerce. and this wing
of Democracy desires to extend free
trade to the purchase of foreign built
ships. Free trade in the carriage of
our commerce has already robbed our
shipowners of 70 per cent of the carry
ing they enjoyed under protection. and
the remedy for The loss as offered by
these Democrats is free trade in the
purchase of ships. They claim that If
able to purchase the ships abroad. be-
cause possibly trifie cheaper. our peO-
pie could compete with foreign ship
owners. But recent Democratic official
statistics show that it cost a great deal
more--between 81 and 80 per cent more
in wages. and as high as so per cent
more in food--to run American than 1t
does to run foreign ships. How, then,
with cheaper ships. but dearer crews.
are Americans to compete with foreign
cheap ships and cheaper crews? 1t Is
impossible without protection. And yet
Americans are at even greater dlsad-
vantage than that caused alone by free
trade. inasmuch as that foreign nations
heavily subsidize both their shipbuild-
ers and shipowners, and, in some cases,
| grant bounties on tonnage besides.
Competition, under the circumstances.
as our proportion of carriage conclu
sively shows, Is utterly impossible.
| Our history shows that when we built
cheaper. 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 ma.itime condition now. why did
| they not do SO over q hundred years
| ago? Protection was necessary to our
success then as 1t is now. The protec-
tion that brought success then will