The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-12-12
SENATOR FRYE ON SUBSIDIES.
A Writer Who Is Not Convinced by
the Maine Mans Argument.

~ NAC -0ltO " ~ oOAAAh0A-
The speech of Senator Frye. chief spon-
sor for the ship subsidy bill. contains
about all the good things that may be said
of this notable measure. The speech.
strong as 1t could be possibly made. falls
far short Of an absolute demonstration
of the wisdom Of the proposed legislation.
The senator fails even to convince one
that the bill, If it became a law, would be
more than a mere experiment in the direc-
ton of increasing our merchant marine
In fact. he practically admits as much in
his remarks. Therefore, why so much
haste to try an experiment? There are but
two propositions established in the sena-
tors speech. namely, hat but a small per
cent. OF our ocean Is carried in
American bottoms, and that the cost of
navigating American ships is, on the aver
age, from 90 TO 50 per cent. higher in the
matter of wages and food than that of
foreign ships. He thinks the bill of fare
provided by statute for the American sailor
compares favorably with the menu of Del
monico's famous restaurant. If so, il could
stand some modification. He also claims
that the cost of shipbuilding is much
higher here than in foreign countries, but
this claim is not fully admitted by all
American shipbuilders. The conclusions
reached by the senator from these propo-
SitionS are that a government subsidy of
years, paid to certain favored individuals,
Will greatly expand our merchant marine
and thereby keep at home millions of dol
lars annually paid to foreign transporta-
ton companies in the way of freights on
our commerce. This all sounds very nicely,
but when it is considered that. only a very
few will reap the financial fruits of this
splendid scheme to build up our merchant
marine, while the whole population is to be
taxed to put it in operation, 1t can hardly
be said the end sought justifes the means
to be employed for its accomplishment. Tie
trouble with this bill is elemental. The
voting of subsidies to any class is wrong
in principle, and when once fairly begun
by Congress will scarcely find any limita-
ton. Every languishing industry will de-
mand a government subsidy with equal
~proprtety, If this precedent is established,
and why not?
Have we not spent about ten years I'm
trying to convince the silver producers of
our Western States that their industry
should not be subsidized by the govern
ment coming their entire product into dol
lars at a ratio about double the CONNER
shouldering the loss in order that that
great industry should not anguish? And
now are we to adopt a reverse and popu-
listic policy in order to hasten the develop
ment of our merchant marine? Surely,
there would be no consistency in such ac-
ton. Why not pay the farmer a bounty
on the food stuff he producers for ex-
port? 1t is by the sweat of the American
farmers brow that we get hold of more
foreign dollars than in any other way.
Surely, If subsidies are to be passed around.
the farmer is quite as deserving as any
other Individual. The reason he should
not applies all around. The government
owes no special fayors, and should grant
none to any class.
As an inducement for passing the bill
Senator Frye predicts lower ocean freights
as one of the results of its operation. How
such a consequence can be the result of
this measure il is difficult to reason out
on the theory by which such a law is to
be justifed-that Ii is necessary TO pay
American ships a bounty to enable them
TO carry freights as low as foreign ves-
sells at present schedules. or course, such
a measure might induce foreign trans
portation companies to lower freights in
the hope of holding business, but in that
event American ships, If the senators facts
are true. would not be able to meet the
competition without increased subsidies,
and would have to go out of commission
until Congress could pass a new subsidy
law.
The relative difference between the wages
of American and foreign Seamen. so far as
the ship subsidy bill is concerned, would
not be affected, hence the obstacle to the
success of American ships that Senator
Frye points out under existing conditions
would also be in the way of the success of
our subsidized ships without perpetual
and increasing government subsidies. In
proportion as ocean frieghts should go
down subsidies would have to go UP, ac-
cording 10 Mr.. Frye's logic.
Admitting for the sake of the argument
that the principle of the bill is right,
there are many Objectionable features.
One is the largest bounties go TO the fast
passenger ships. which carry very little
freight; the slow ~freighterS are not to be
I'm IL in the matter of bounties, as compared
with the ocean greyhounds; yet the bill
purports to be a measure for the benefit OF
our foreign commerce. This part Of the
measure looks more like. an attempt TO get
a pull at the national treasury than TO
nave our carried in American
ships.
1t is firmly believed by authority quite
as reliable as the men behind the present
bill that a thorough overhauling of our
ancient and obsolete navigation laws by
Congress would contribute far more to-
wards restoring our prestige on the seas
than the pending measure, and that. too.
without doing violence TO any established
principle of our government, or creating a
bad precedent. When one considers this
subject thoroughly in all it's bearings the
conclusion is well-nigh irresistible that the
ship subsidy bill is a measure designed to
take money out Of the treasury and put
n into the rockets of n few rich men in
the East. The Republican party cannot af-
ford TO make such a record as that in
Congress. j. III. CLAYPOOL.
r---,oIt- noa IN