The Portland daily press., 1900-03-29
TIE SHIP SUBSIDY BILL.

The ship subsidy bill, full outline
Of which IL published In our Washington
despatch, Is In mary ways one OF the
most important bills In Congre1s. ana
one, TOO, IN regard to which there will
be wide and honest difference of opinion.
Undoubtedly there is an almost uni.
versai ssntiment In the country that
something should be done to revive the
sbippip industry. Not many years ago
this sentiment Was largely connned 10 the
coast states. but now 1t appears to be
almost IL not quite a. strong In The In
terror. The per cent Of our exports which
are carried in American vessels has grad
ually shrunk to Insignificant proportions.
Just prior to the civil war We had out
stripped England In the number and ton
mage Of ships engaged In the carrying
trade. but the substitution OF iron
ships for wooden ones and the depreda-
tions Of Confsdsrate cruisers turned the
ta bles against us, and the decline that
then began has steadily continusd- Tbs
principal reason why we cannot compete
with foreign nations today In this busi.
ness, is the higher price which has TO
be paid to our ship builders and
to the crews Of our vessels. Aa there is
no tariff on materials entering into the
construction of ships, the tariff is not IS
many suppose, a factor In this business.
The plans for revival generally aavo-
Gated are two In number: One to repeal
the shipping law Of 1898 and sllow Amer
leans to purchase ships any where they
oan find them. and place them under the
American flag. The other is to establish
q system Of bounties e. subsidies suoh as
are provided for In the bill before Con-
gress. The objection to the trst plan is
hat 1t would destroy the shipbuiiding
Ind ustry In this country, dismantls sn
our ship yards and In time leave us
without workmen skilled In the con-
struction Of vessels. Ths prinoipal ob-
jection to ths second IL that Its tendency
is to impose taxes upon the general pub
Ito for the benefit Of = particular class.
Both objections are strong ones II they
really exist. But the friends of the first
plan DO not admit that the objection
made to IL that 1t would close our ship
yards really exists, or at least exists to
the extent its opponents claim; and the
friends Of the second plan claim that
when all the effects Of q revival OF our
carrying trade are taken into account
the results Of a subsidy will be OF suoh
general advantage as to make 1t clear
that the plan is not opsn to the objsction
Of imposing general taxation for
the benefit Of the few. They
say that not only will IL revive
our carrying trade, thus securing
employment to . large number Of
American citizens ON shipbcard, but that
one of Its indirect eifeotI will be 70 lower
the carrying rate Of all kinds OF goods,
thus bsnefiting the farmer and ths ex-
por ter of manufactured goods. Further.
more 1t is urged that for the national
defence In time Of war 1t is imperative
that the country shall be able to call into
It's service q large number OF steamships,
as England 10 now able to do. These
claims, among others, are relied upon
co meet ths objection which Is strong
one If 1t exists. that this measure would
be practically class legislation.
The bill as 1t was originally drawn
encountered very strong opposition on no.
count of belief that 1t would operate
chic fly to the advantage OF big corpora
lions, who alone could build the large
and fast ships which IL called for, and
would be a dstriment rather than q help
to the ship builders of moderate means.
In its new draft 1t has bssn amended SO
as to avoid those objections In large
measure, and Republicans who opposed
lt In its original form nrs supporting It
in its new draft.
The chances of the bill being passed by
tte Senate at this session are very good,
but it's fate In the House is uncertain,
there tsing disposition on the part of
many who are favorable to Its ultimate
passage to postpone 10 until the next
session.