Gloucester County Democrat., 1901-01-31
THE SHIP SUBSIDY BILL.
Actual Effect OF the Measure Now
Pending In Congress.


Pending In Congress.
The report of the minority of the
committee on merchant marine and
fisheries thus exposes the actual eff
fects of the ship subsidy bill which
Senator Hanna and his friends in the
International Navigation company are
making such strenuous efforts to get
through the present congress:
A careful examination of the terms
of the bill and of the conditions of
shipbuilding and shipowning, as stated
by the commissioner of navigation,
has convinced us that the real effect
of this bill will not be to encourage
the building Of ships which would
not otherwise be built or to in
crease trade, but to further increase
the profits of the already prosper
Gus lines which without subsidy have
been built or contracted for the very
ships to subsidize which this bill is
framed.
Mr. Griscom in House Hearings,
pages "a and 25, explained as to ships
which would be specially favored:
81 should say offhand that the IA
knot ship of the largest possible size,
that would carry about 10000 tons.
would be the ship that under that
Subsidy bill would get the best COM
pensation-that is, II knots is about
the speed that we think is economical
speed to do the business, especially on
the Pacific and also on the Atlantic
We have ships building of between
ate speed. A great many are building
in Great Britain now which will carry
10000 tons of cargo and not measure
10000 Registered tonnage).
"Of such ships there are compara-
lively few in the world today. 1t is
only recently that they have been
built at all. In 1898, the greatest year
read in the worlds history, but six
in all were turned out-four in Great
Britain and two in Germany. But on
Sept. 80, 1899, there were then building
of such vessels 16 in Great Britain and
several in Germany, largely for subsidy
promised by this bill.'
AS most of these ships were being
constructed under contracts made in
1897 and 1898 and for the lines repre-
sented on the committee which drew
the original subsidy bill and sent it to
congress in 1898, it only remains to be
stated that, as Senator Frye has ex-
planned (senate hearings, p. ., it was
in 1897 that the coterie behind this bill
was formed. Having originally plan
ned to let in only foreign ships con-
tracted for abroad Jan. l, 1899, they
Immediately proceeded to place their
contracts.
The date was not changed to Jan. 1,
1900, until it was too late for those out
side of this coterie to secure contracts
on that date.
We see no reason why only q favored
few should be permitted to bring in
foreign ships and get subsidy upon
them and believe that the date should
be set ahead, so that all will have an
equal opportunity to take advantage of
our country's generosity.
The "cargo" amendment, while it will
probably not hurt anybody, will GER
tainly never touch the owners of pas
senger steamers. Under it steamships
like the st. Paul would not need to car
ry more than 1900 or 1000 tons of car
go to get the full subsidy, while they
never leave our ports with much less
than q full cargo-3,500 to $500 tons.
Should it ever happen that they would
wish to leave our ports with less than
1900 tons the owners have but to sell
more space by the year, and the sub
sidy stream will continue to flow full,
as before.
Such a large amount of subsidy prac
tically put at the disposal of the few
who benefit by this bill cannot but tepd
to unite even more closely than now
the great shipbuilding, shipowning and
railroad interests concerned in this
measure.
By the time these few interests bring.
in their foreign owned ships and get
their ships now being built into the
subsidy race the $9,O00,000 limit will
undoubtedly be reached; hence it will
be to their interest to combine to stop
competition and to prevent their sub
sidy rates and profits from declining.
We believe that such q combination
would be completed soon after the pas
sage of this bill.