Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1900-12-27
DEFENCE OF SUBSIDY GRAB
MIR. Thomas Clyde Tries to
Show Its Good Points.
WILL COVER DIFFERENCE IN COST
Between Operating British and
American Ships.
And So Mr.. Clyde Thinks II Would be q
Good Thing to Draw on the National
Treasury for the Benefit of American
shIps-His Plea Demolished by the New
York Evening Post.

Treasury for the Benefit of American
shps-His Plea Demolished by the New
York Evening Post.
To the Editor of The Evening POST
Sir: Since you have mentioned my
name editorially int connection with
the Subsidy bill, and in a way that
might lead to the inference that ] am
aiding in a raid upon the treasury,
rather than in an honest effort to find
some practicable method OF reyiving
the American merchant marine, ] ask
that you will publish this brief state
ment of my position iE the matter.
/ make this request not because
feel that my words, which you did me
the honor to quotss require any ex-
PLANTATION or defence, but in the hope
that frank statemept of my views
may lead to more temperate and use
full discussion Of the subject in your
columns.
l have Inherited and acquired con-
siderable experience in the building,
owning and operating of ships, and
this experience has convinced mo that
owing to the higher wages paid for all
kinds OF labor under the American flag,
both ashore ard sfIoat, 1t costs on an
average at least 20 per cent more to
build and maintain, ard 1913 more to
operate American ships than those Of
Great Britain.
As | have stated. these figures are
based on my inherited and personal ex-
perience, bur / would be pleased to
learn the experience of any other
Americans, if there be any, who have
been able to get ships built in this
country or to operate them at less
differences in cost, as compared with
the ships OF Great Britain.
Permit me to remark at this point
that the oft quoted statement Of Mr..
Cramp that he could build certain
shiEs in his yard, under certain condi-
tions, as cheaply as they could be built
abroad, has tailed to carry conviction
to my mind because | have repeatedly
tried and failed to persuade Mr.. q am
to build a ship for me within less .uan
90 per cent in excess of the cost of such
a ship abroad.
| Under these circumstances | cannot
see how American ships can com pete
with British ships unless these differ.
ences of, say, 90 per cent in cost and
3313 pen cent in operation are made
| good to them, 80 as to place them on
terms of equality with British compet,,
tors.
Obviously, also, in cases whore the
4 British ship receives subsidy from tht
British government, the American shiI
must have that made good TO her ir
addition, or she cannot compete.
In this connection, we muet not forge
that about so per cent of the steam
ships of the world, capable of Waking
| I Irr ut,h o1
Now at this point l am prepared t.
part company with all those who be
lieye 1t is better to do without Ameri
can ships than to make good to them
by some kind of national aid, the dis
advantages already noted.
There are many, however, who ar,
not prepared to abandon the issue
simply because its solution appears t.
require a broader application of tn
principles of protection than we are d
present accustomed to, and with then
the question appears to be how best t
convey from the nation TO the individ
ual the equivalent in money Of the dis
advantages under which the America
ship labors.
Some suggest charging higher dut
. on goods imported iu foreign vessel
than on those imported in America
vessels This would enable America
shipowners to charge higher rates G
freight than foreign shipowners, upo
imports into this county, and IL tn
difference in duties was sufficient, th
American ship could unquestionably b
put Oh terms of equality with Britis
ships in this way.
This method, however, would requir
the ahrogation Of our most importan
, existing treaties, could be easil.
blocked by retaliation and would i'm
pose rather too unlimited tax upo
/ consumers in this country. who woul
of course have to pay the bill.
Ths suggestion OF export bountie
amounts to the same thing, turne
/ round aud made to work the other way
and is open to similar objections.
The other and simplest way of all
to estimate the money equivalent {
i tho disadvantages suffered by th
] American ship, az compared with th
3 British ship, scaled SO as to meet tn
practical requirements OF the case. an
then provide for the direct paymer
from the national treasury to the shiI
owner OF sums of money, based upo
such a scale, applied to a commo
, unit of service rendered.
:
a 1877 and H. r. GA are designed to dc
! and advocate their passage because
! believe they will do it fairly, and in
way to create and sustain u larger mel
v chant marine for an expenditure {
81, 900, 600 per year, for term of year
: than can be created or sustained IL
the same sum In any other way.
This, take it,, is what the peop
= want. and | believe the bills will do
! because have tested their provision
= by every method suggested by sue
: practical knowledge as possess, and
d have yet to fiEd any unfairness or lac
/. of regard for the interests of the natiol
as we'll as those of the shipowner,
them.
IS What / believe Senator Hanna meal
to convey in that part of his speech
y which you alluded in your editori
i was that, taking the differences in I'll
:. cost of building and operating the s
j. Louis in this country, as compare
q with Great Britain, and adding to 81
o results of these differences the suhve
]. tiops, &C., for which she would
eligible under the English flag, as ev
denced by those paid the ships of Il
Cunard and White Star Lines, the s
o Louis would have to get all the subsit
" she could earn under 8. 1877 TO put h
9 on terms of equality with ships IKE u
10 Oampania or Majestic, with which 81
}. has to compete.
J, This ia true bsyond question, ms al
% one can see for himself Il he will exar
n | inc the detailed statement upon th
point printed in Senator Frye's spss'