Omaha daily bee., 1900-02-09
SUBSIDIES ISEFFECTIVE.
Claims in Their Behalf Will Not Bear
Investigation

New York journal of Commerce.
The Journal of Commerce would be glad
to see American steamers traveTsing every
sea and carrying the greater part of our
own and a good part of the com
meTce Of other nations; it would be glad TO
sec this upon one proviso. and that is that
il should be profitable; that the business
should earn more than its cost. If it should
earn less than it's cost the country would
lost the difference, whether the loss fell
| upon the s~hipownerS or whether the rest OF
the population were taxed to reimburse
them; the loss would be there, no matter
who paid for it,
This paper does not believe that it is
sound public policy to take out of the treas
ury funds raised by taxation and hand them
ever to persons engaged in a private busr-
ness to cover their losses. The argument;
that the subsidy is a logical part of the
protective system is specious. Evidently
the country does not believe in it, for while
it. has maintained the protective system for
many years, it has only occasionally, and
for brief periods, prepaid subsidies. The
tariff law is a law for providing the govern
ment with a revenue; the subsidy law Is a
law for depriving the government of it's
revenue; they are not analogous.
There is another distinction; the carrying
trade Is in the very nature of the case eX-
posed to world wide competition; therefore
it presents an entirely different aspect from
a domestic manufacture The advocates of
/ subsidies talk about meeting British COM
petition, but England is complaining of Nor
wegian competition. The mercantile marine
OF Norway is growing faster than that of
any other country. The commissioner OF
navigation has published comparative sta.
tiGtirc IN show the cost nf ppar,tinu chit.
under different flags. The cost under the
British flag is less than under the American.
but it is still less under the German, and
least of all under the Norwegian flag. From
the dawn of history seafaring has been the
main pursuit of peoples that had little
chance to invest their labor and capital on
land. We have been on the sea; we have
left 1t for more profitable pursuits, and now
If we are to go back to it, with the help or
taxation, are we going to meet only British
competition. or are we going to face the
competition of Norway and Offset the wage,
of l~ascars? How far are we prepared to 60
in this dangerous direction?
There are two reasons why we do not
compete with foreign merchantmen. Our
ships cost mere to build and they cost
more to operate. But that Is largely due
to the fact that labor is better paid ana
'tllNSl llthutliNt uNlt lldn hDIOiIt
Therefore, there is less necessity he.c thar
abroad for taxing people 10 support this in
dustry; Americans have dropped II for
occupations hat pay better. But a country
that is exporting locomotives to every
quarter # he globe will not be lons in
building steamers as cbeaply as any Other
nation, and a country that has demonstrated
in most forms Of production that high wages
are consistent with a low cost Of labor Will
not be permanently kept off the sea by the
fact that seamen's wages are higher here
Than abroad. As we are now competing with
Europe in most lines OF production we are
by a natural and wholesome course OF
economic development approaching the time
when we shall be able TO compete upon the
sea With the rest Il The world.
Subsidies are wholly Ineffective. We have
tried them and abandoned them. Not over
4 per cent OF the British or German steam
tonnage receives money from the govern