Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1897-01-28
AMERICAN SHIPPING.

There is now pending in the United
States senate bill, having for its object
the levying of discriminating duties on
foreign ships trading with this country.
The measure is highly meritorious one
and if law, would prove of great benefit
in building up the American merchant
marine.
Even the British are bound to acknowl-
edge that the principle in Senator EIkins
bill is the correct one.
In an article written for the South
American Review, by Rev.J H. Heaton,
a member of the British parliament, we
find the following:
Gas consequence of refusing to pay
100000 year in subsidies during
thirty years to native shlpowners, or
S150,000,00O in all, the United States has
had to pay, in the same period, no less
than $4,000, 100000 for freights, while her
mercantile marine has dwlndled to in
significance"
1t should not be forgotten that the de-
struction of our shipping, which Mr..
Heaton refers to, has destroyed the great
nursery from which our national navy
would have been supplied with sailors.
We are now reaping the fatal results of
this suicidal policy in the almost impos-
sible efforts which are being made to
man the ships of our navy, and it is per-
tinent to ask. In the event of war, and a
large and sudden demand for ships, where
could seamen be found to man them?
Thomas Jefferson said on this subject
in 1898:
ut is true that we must expect some
Inconvenience in practice from the es
Establishment of discriminating duties.
But in this, as in many other cases, We
are left to choose between two evils. But
these inconvenience are nothing when
weighed against the loss of wealth and
the loss of force which will follow our
lack of perseverance in the plan of dis
elimination. II is not to the moderation
and Justice of others we are to trust for
fair and equal success to market with our
productions, or for our due share in the
rsnspor.ation of them, but in our own
means of Independence and the firm will
to use them"
In his memorable answer to Mr.. Glad
stone in 1890, the ever-lamented Blaine
said:
cit will not escape Mr.. Gledstone's
keen observation, that British interests
in navigation flourish with less rivalry
and have increased in greater proportion
than any other of the great interests of
tho United Kingdom. I ask his candid
admission that it is the one interest
which England has steadily and determin-
eddy protected, regardless of consistency
and regardless of expense. Nor will Mr..
Gladstone fail to note that navigation is
the weakest of the great interests of the
United States, because it is the one which
the national government has consistently
refused to protect. If, since the civil
war, the United States had spent in pro-
teoting her shipping merely the annual
interest on the great sum which England
has expended to protect her ocean traffic,
American fleets would now be rivaling
the fleets of England, as they rivaled
them before the war, on every seq where
the prospect of commercial gain invites
the American flag"
Like all of Mr.. Blaines reasonings, this
is conclusive, and leaves nothing more to
be said on the point he touches. But
neither Mr.. Gladstone nor the opponents
of Mr.. Elkins' bill desire to see "the fleets
of America rivaling the fleets of England
as they rivaled them before the war;" but
they do desire to see England outrival US
on both sea and land. If this bill fails it
will be another strong reason for i'm
proving the personnel of the senate by
electing senators by popular vote direct.