Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1901-02-20
THE SUBSIDY QUESTION.

unQer 1alSe prelellSeS'
THE SUBSIDY QUESTION.
Now that the smoke is clearing away
somewhat, it is beginning to look pref
ty plain that about the only Importance
that the ship subsidy question has at
tained in South Carolina, is as battle
ground between Senators Tillman and
McLaurin, and as point of attack
against which Senator McLaurin's op-
ronents have deemed it advantageous
to direct their fire.
That there has never been any kindly
feeling between Senators Tillman and
McLaurin since the latter's famous
"Squedunk" letter of a number of years
ago, is pretty generally understood. 1t
is known that the senior senator would
much rather have a more subservient
and congenial colleague, and it Is re-
membered also that Tillman has prod
ded more or less viciously at McLaurin
at divers times and places.
The Columbia Record states, without
giving it's authority, that the recent
effort to secure the censure Of Senator
McLaurin by the house, had it's origin
with Senator Tillman in Washington,
and the Greenville Mountaineer makes
this remark: "It is reported that Sena-
tor Tilman takes the ground that un-
less the legislature passes the resolu-
ton condemning the course of Senator
McLaurin, it's negligence would be ac-
cepted by some as disapproval of his
own conduct" We do not know that
Senator Tillman had anything to do
with the fight in the legislature; but
we are free to say that, in our opinion,
he is responsible for most Of 1t. We
agree with The Mountaineer, however.
in the view that the failure of the leg
islature to pass the anti-McLaurin res
olutions do not reflect upon Senator
Tillman's course, and going further, we
will say that the resolutions subse-
quently passed in endorsement OF Sen
ator Tillman, are not to be considered
as entitled to much significance. The
resolution passed both houses without
a dissenting voice. and we are moral
" certain that the legislature of South
Carolina is not so unanimous in it's ap-
proval of Senator Tillman as that. 1t
seems to us that many senators and
representatives must have considered
the resolution unnecessary and uncall-
ed for, and they either voted for it or
declined to vote because Of their disin-
clination to enter into an unpleasant
antagonism that promised no good.
In the subsidy principle as applied to
shipping, we can see much practical
sense. Almost every nation that aspires
to develop it's maratime power Is
either subsidizing or considering the
disirability of subsidizing it's merchant
marine The necessity for such action
is easily illustrated. Take England, for
instance. For more than a thousand
years she has been a sea-faring nation.
Her people have ship building reduced
to the highest development of the sci
ence. Her shipowners have the car
rying trade reduced to perfection in all
it's details. Skill. experience and sys-
tenn have combined to secure the great
est possible efficiency along with the
greatest economy. For these reasons
English ships have many positive ad-
yantages over those of other countries
and the British merchant marine, as
whole, can make money where the
merchant marine that is just trying to
establish itself upon its own merits,
would starve to death. To build up
the newcomer then, in competition
with the old established business, there
must be hacker who will guarantee
profit whether the same be actually
earned or not. That is the whole ship
subsidy question in a nutshell.
AS to whether there is any real ne
cessity for an American ship subsidy
law we are doubtful. In order that we
may not be charged with trying to
dodge the question, we will say that If
there is SUCH a necessity, we are in ia
cor Of the subsidy. But as we have al
ready remarked, We are doubtful about
the necessity for such law. II 1t
were a question of $9,00O,0OO year, or
twice that, for ten years, to make this
country independent of foreign coun-
tries in the carrying trade, then the
money will be we'll spent. The fact
that the money would have to be paid
by the whole people to private individ-
uals or corporations, would cut no fig
ure. There is no injustice about the
AS we understand it, there
is nothing to prevent individuals or
corporations, other than those already
in the business, from owning ships. The
subsidy would be open to anybody VINO
might comply with the conditions. In
fact the sole object Of the present prop
osition is to induce others than those
already in the business to invest in
ocean ships. 1t is not the principle or
the probable results of the proposed
law that would make us hesitate IN
giving the matter our sanction. If
merchant marine cannot be built up IN
any other way than by subsidy. then
a subsidy should be allowed; but II IL
can and will be built up otherwise
that will be much better.
The great steel, iron. coal, Oil ana
other trusts of the country are the lar
gest shippers Of manufactured pro-