Griggs courier. (Cooperstown, Griggs Co., Dak. [N.D.]) 1885-1902, 1897-03-05
Discriminating Duties.

Discriminating Duties.
The American Economist has taken
occasion to discuss quite fully the
subject of discriminating duties in
favor of goods brought here in Amer
lean bottoms or, per contra, against
goods brought here in foreign bot
toms. This proposition was drafted
into bill and offered in the United
States Senate by Mr.. Elkins of West
Virginia, and known as Senate bill
No. 1882. The measure has for it's OBJ
ject the encouraging of American
Merchant Marine. and proposes that
goods brought to this country in for
eign bottoms shall pay 10 per cent
duties advalorem more than if brought
in American bottoms
1t is the principle in this law which
we wish to advocate rather than the
rate OF additional duties proposed. 1t
will be admitted that the same propo-
sit:on when q law was very success
full in the establishment of the Amer
lean Merchant Marine III the early
history of the government. In fact,
it is conceded by all historians that
@ law similar to the bill introduced by
Mr.. Elllins was the direct cause of the
gro With of American shipping.
The protectionist stands for protec-
tion to the employees. of American
transportation companies on land: he
also stands for the protection Of
American seamen. 1t is Il well-Snown
fact. and endorsed by our shipping
laws, that American seamen receive
higher wages than any seaman in the
world. We are creditably informed
that the cost of operating American
ships, based simply on the question of
wages, is nearly double that of other
nations. 1t is manifest then that
American shipping can be fostered in
only two ways-viZ.. by bounties and
subsidies or by discriminating duties.
The American people are not in any
temper to take up an elaborate system
of subsidies. but they have declared
themselves in favor of protection npon
land and sea-
The discriminating duty plan simply
means that goods brought here in
American bottoms shall pay the rates
of duty laid down by law, and that
goods brought hero in foreign bottoms
shall pay an additional duty. The
difficulty to American shipping is not
in securing a cargo going abroad, but
rather in securing a cargo returning
to this country. A homeward cargo
aided by discriminating duty would
nnquestionably make q great demand
for American ships, and it is believed
that every shipyard from Maine to the
Gulf, and on the Pacific northward
from San Francisco to Puget Sound
would be busy with orders. This is
not simply an opinion, for the same
policy when in effect during the first
decade of this century accomplished
the same result.
We regret to know that there is OPP
position to this wise measure of pro-
lection, and especially coming from
Philadelphia, as expressed in the re-
solutions or memorial adopted by the
Mari6ime Exchange of that city last
week. This Maritime Exchange, like
some other organizations of the kind,
may be simply the agent of the North
Atlantic shipping pool-ss foreign
trust which should be investigated.
The foreign shipping interests have
become SO powerful in this country
and SO involved with the transporta-
tion interests that it is not difficult to
secure opposition to a measure of this
kind. 1t is also quite possible that
the American Line owned by the In
ternational Navigation Company
(now heavily subsidized) J, which has
fully as many ships under foreign
flag as under the American, has taken
an interest in defeating this patriotic
proposition. This measure would
create activity in shipbuilding and re.
store the American flag in the Mer.
chant Marine. Every one who favors
adequate protection by import duties
should favor the policy of discrimin.
ating duties, for it will accomplish fol-
American shipping the same grand
results to American interests in the
ocean carrying trade that protection
has given upon land.
NOTICE.