New-York tribune., 1901-01-14
United States Senate.

Washington. D. c.. January S. 1901.
My Dear Mr.. Reid: I am obliged for yours
o: the 4th inst. and for your kind personal
expressions.
7 am disposed 10 believe from a close study
OF the situation that you somewhat overestimate
the nature and extent Of the opposition 10 the
Subsidy BILL at least far the Senate Is
concerned. The assurances OF support ] have
personally received from my colleagues are so
at variance with the newspaper reports OF their
attitude, even in the columns Of The Tribune.
that you will readily understand my unshaken
belief that influences are al work in Washing
ton TO convey 10 the public an erroneous i'm
preston Of the situation OF the bill as well as
Of it's provisions.
The statement in regard 10 the American
Line, which you cite. is an illustration. The
four mail steamships OF that line. when they
fulfil their contract Of 1fty-twe voyages year
under the Postal Subsidy act Of 1891. receive
annually $4,000. Under the pending bill they
will receive for hfty-two voyages 81, 100000.
The present rate is 81 per statute mile outward
bound; the proposed rate is equivalent. as nearly
as may be. 70 So per statute mile outward
bound.
The rate OF So per mile that proposed by
the Postal Subsidy bill of 1891 as passed by the
Senate. When the House returned the bill with
that rate reduced 10 81 was disposed TO aban-
don the bill altogether. as was convinced that
IL would prove failure. Against my own iudg-
ment accepted il, and the next year. as you
will recall. We were compelled 10 pass an act
admitting the Paris and the New-York in order
20 give any vitality whatever 70 the Postal Sub
sdy bill OF 1891. Since 1Se4-'95 the American
Line has been running without paying any divi-
dends. our committee has been repeatedly
assured by Mr. Griscom- The pending Subsidy
bill in effect restores the rate of Sc. which will
suffice TO enable the company 20 pay on those
ships dividend OF about Sl5 per cent. new
obligation is put upon the company 10 build in
the United States 10000 tons in the form Of a
new steamship or ships. So far as the Ameri-
can Line is concerned. the criticisms OF the bill
appear to me TO be entirely without foundation
and trust that on reviewing the facts your
judgment which 1 value, will coincide with my
own that the proposition is entirely fair
My views the subject Of admitting foreign
built ships TO American registry. you doubt
less know, are as positive as your own. When
our committee reached this phase of the general
problem we were met by the fact that the few
American steamship owners engaged in foreign
trade. almost without exception. owned steam
ships under foreign flags or had contracted for
the building OF steamships abroad These in
vestments OF American capital. made much in
advance Of the time when the committee had
made even tentative draft Of the bill and made
without regard TO possible legislation we be-
lieved were entitled 70 some consideration The
foreign built Paris and New-York under the
acts of 1891 and 1892, are allowed 70 draw full
subsidy. The pending bill allows foreign built
steamships 10 draw only one-half subsidy, the
same condition (nanlely, the construction OF
equivalent tonnage in the United States) being
prescribed as was prescribed when the Paris
and the New-York were admitted.
am somewhat puzzled by your reiterated re-
quest TO know whom the bill would most bene-
ht. II has not been my practice in Congress 10
vote sums OF money, large or small from the
public Treasury unless ] believed l saw CORE
spending benefits to the people Of the United
States. The individuals or corporations who
will, in the first instance. receive the largest
subsidies are those who own the greatest
amounts of tonnage, and AT the present time
these, as you know. are the International Navi-
CATION Company. the Atlantic Transport. Pa
cihc Mail. and the New-York and Cuba Mail
Steamship companies. They will receive sub
sides only in proportion 10 the results they pro-
duce in the line of those public purposes for
which you and 1 believe subsidies are proper
and effcacious public expenditure. In this re-
spect they are favored no more than the owner
OF a sixty-fourlh in one OF the small sailing
vessels or my own State. Indeed. on the aritn-