The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1901-05-22

~. ss-.-
is to follow in Developing orr foreign
trade the same principles that have
succeeded in our internal develop.
ment. Is there anything new or
strange in this? 1t Is good common
business seEse. What difference in
principle is there between the State
Government substituting railroads.
and the Federal government steam.
ship lines?
WHAT DOES BRYAN THINK OF
HIS POLITICAL PARTNER
OF 1896?
| / have In my hand an article advo-
eating subsidies by Mr. Sewall, who
was on the Bryan ticket in 1896.
would like to know what Mr.. Bryan
thinks of the Democracy of his re-
cent political partner, since he has
attacked mine" Twenty years ago,
when we wished to develop manu-
featuring in South Carolina, did we
not subsidize every cotton mill by
exempting 1t from taxation? What
progressive town or county has not
EtilsiLized railroads oi other enter.
D-iscs essential to its development?
l never saw an Individual, who ever
amounted to anything. who was;
afraid to spend money on himself.
and SO 1t is with towns, counties.
States aii,i governments.
| VOTING SUBSIDIES TO RAIL
| ROADS AND NEWSPAPERS.
| Why should the Southern neople.
In the face OF these facts. rep:d az,
the spirit -: sXt.- yeas ago? Wha; q
gross inconsistency for Senator'S and
representatives to dcnouncc the sub.
sity principle and endeavor to arouse
the prejudices of the people. when
nearly every one OF them from the
South each year votes subsidy to
the Southern Railroad for carrying
| the fast mail to New Orleans
Why. low-citizens, they voted
for PCstofficc Appropriation Bill at
the last session, with subsidy of
thirty-flve million dollars for carr
ing the mails. 1t is really a subsdv
to the magazines aud newspapers CT
the country, for the receipts are that
much less than the expenditures for
that class of mail. A subsidy OF nine
millions per year Is much more defen-
sible. in my judgment. in the develop
Iaant Of our foreign trade. We spend
millions Of dollars building naval ves-
sells. useful only in times of wa-
! war and peace? Every vessel &C.
ceptilg the subsidy is a part of the
navy in time Of war. The question
Is not as to the principle OF the sub
sidy bill. that Is part Of our es-
tablished policy, both State and Ma
tional. but it is whether this particu-
lar subsidy is for the general well
fare. Is it expedient. is it wise. and
! shall devote q few moments to this
aspect Of the case. There was
time when. by government aid and
encouragement. we had a merchant
marine, and carried ninety per cent.
Of our products abroad. Last year
only nine Per cent. was carried in
American bottoms. Why is this?
EUROPE VS. UNITED STATES.
1t is because in this contest Of Eu
rope against the United States. for
eign shipowners get a subsidy from
their governments of twenty mil
lion dollars, besides the advaata9 20
of lower wages. and have thus driven
the American flag from the high seas.
We pay this subsidy to the foreign
ships in increased freight rates over
and over again. We are drained Of
two hundred millions a year which
we pay foreign vessels in freights.
No other country could stand such
drain. After all. then, we are pay
ing q subsidy. and hence 1t is a Ques-
ton Of whether we will subsidizc
American or foreign vessels. It Is
useless for me to discuss before this
intelligent audience the importance
of our foreign trade. Il Europe anil
the United States are to be competi-
tors in the markets Of the world. cnn
we afford to put ourselves entirely in
their hands? The power to fix
freight rates gives them the power
| n v ~ xx-ho OF
and manufactured products.
Suppose there should be general
European war. and the merchant
marine of England. Germany and Nor
way was pressed in for transroTt
service. What would be the effect
on cotton and cotton goods? tell
you. that you would see cotton hauled
into the streets O. Greenville and not
sold at three cents. but simply hauled
back home. There would be no
BUYERS, because there would be no
SHIPS to carry cotton or cotton goods
abroad. business Of all kinds would
languish, and there would be failures
on every hand. Conditions have
changed. Before the war we were
buyers abroad. now we are sellers.
change products, but to come here to
buy. Nothing would suffer in case of
European war like cotton. They
would have to come here to buy
wheat. corn. bacon. mules and horses.
as England did In the Boer War, but
they could do without cotton for n
year or SO. All the ships would be
needed for war uses. Foodstuffs high
and no salo for cotton. what could
hurt the South worse? What. then.
Is more dependent on American ships
than the cotton crop?
! Does any man Of common sense