The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-18
The American Merchant Marine:
Hnxx to Build Ii Ip.


attack. First. that the subsidy principle
is unsound from an economic standpoint;
that it is unconstitutional; that 1t is pa
ternalism in it's worst form; that ii is
protection pushed to its most pernicious
limit, and that. unlike ordinary protec-
ton, il leaves no doubt as to who pays
the tax. Second, that the particular bill
now before Congress is an organized raid
on the Treasury in the interest of a pow
erful combine; that while ostensibly fol-
the upbuilding of the American merehan,
marine, it is in reality a plan for the peo-
pie to pay tribute to a shipping syndi-
cate; that its provisions are grossly I'M
just and discriminating; that enormous
bounties would be paid to ships which
carry few exports, and that the vessels
really engaged in commerce would gain
practically nothing by its enactment.
While maintaining the justice and cor
rectness of these two propositions. let us
admit for the sake of argument that they
have been disproven. Let us suppose
that subsidies are economically sound,
and that the Hanna bill is honestly con-
structed, with the laudable view of aid
ing our merchant marine. We are then
confronted with the question: Do subsi-
dies build up a country's shipping inter-
ests? The barrier of practically will
have to be crossed after the other two OBJ
stacles have been disposed of Il is, after
all has been said and done, the question
in which The people are most deeply in
terested. They want to know whether,
TO get value received for their money
Men may differ on a question of political
economy, and a steal may be SO disguised
as to pass unnoticed. But there need be
no doubt as to the benefits to be received
from an outlay which may amount to
hundreds of millions of dollars
There are abundant instances of the
operation Of ship subsidies and the value
derived therefrom. We have tried SUBJ
sides in this country, and in Europe
there are convincing examples of the in
efficacy of the system as a bolster to
paralyzed or declining commerce. 1t is
not too broad an assertion to state that
they have been found useless except
within the most narrow limits, and in
harmful. The term narrow limits" is
used advisedly. An exception may be
claimed in the particular of subsidies
for carrying the mails. and there are
some who honestly defend the payment
of a subvention for the right of Gov
eminent to call for the use of certain
ships for auxiliary naval purposes in
1T rD,,. go
the people obtain no practical results.
The history of ship subsidy expert
ments for the broad purpose of building
up a merchant marine is a story of igno-
minious failure. Let US first turn to the
instances in the United States. In 1850
the old Collins Line was granted eight
hundred and fifty thousand dollars for
twenty-six trips a year. The country
received no benefit and the company
went into bankruptcy in 1853. Congress
tried the subsidy plan in 1866 with the
Brazilian Line. In 1857 the Pacific Mail
subsidy was put into effect. In spite
Of all this American trade continued to
decline, and the matter was made the
subject of a Congressional investigation
in 1853 In the case of the Pacific Mail
the exports to Japan increased but
Slightly, and when the bounty was with
drawn our trade began to grow at a
rapid rate. The subsidy to the Bra
lillian Line was found so profitIess that
IT was Withdrawn in 1876. and there was
an immediate gain in the commerce with
that South American Republic. the VOL
ume OF trade increasing from seven mil
lions OF dollars to fifteen millions. The
Venezuelan Red d Line was subsidized
under the postal law of 1891 At that
time our exports TO Venezuela
amounted to 81, 1884. 956: in 1899 they were
2.251. 634. In addition to the failure Of
the Pacific Mail subsidy TO accomplish
any real benefit. IL caused one of the
most disgracefui scandals that has ever
tainted our National Legislature.
Probably no European country has ex-
periInented as extensively with ship sub
sides as France. Since 1865 the marked
decline of the French merchant navy has
been the subject Of the most profound
study. Various schemes were tried, and
in 1851 law was passed granting boun-
chant vessels. By its provisions the ship
builder was allowed eleven dollars and
hfty-eight cents for every gross ton OF
vessels constructed, and two dollars and
III rty-two cents per ten Kilograms Of ma
chinery and boilers. To the owners OF |
ships Of French construction a bounty of |
twenty cents per net ton for every |
Ole thousand miles sailed for the FIRST |
year was given. Each succeeding year the |
bounty was diminished one and four enths |
cents for wood and composite vessels, and |
one cent for vessels built Of iron or steel |
For a year or two this law gave an artl- |
fetal stimulus to shipbuildng, and num- |
Der Of fine vessels were added to the |
French feet. 1t was seen, however that |
the law was not all that was to be de- |
sirel, and in 1898 another subsidy law |
WIS passed. increasing the bounty on con- |
etruction and basing the bounty to ship |
owners upon the gross tonnage Instead of |
the net tonnage.
In spite OF this law tie steam tonnage |
engaged In meeting foreign competition has |
actually showed decrease from 1893 to |
1888. Dissatisfied with the operation OF |
the law of 1898 the Chamber OF Deputies |
In December. 1896, passed a resolution re- |
questing the Minister of Commerce 20 APP