The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-14

ihat they will reduce rates They claim
that all its benefits will go to the shippers
| and farmers, and not to the vessel owners.
If this were true. the ship owners would
| not be spending so much time to get the
| bill passed
1T may be important to observe mere
| over, that there Is nothing in the bill to
prevent American owners of stock in the
| corporations benefited under this law
! from selling their stock to foreigners.
The defenders of the bill are Vigor 1us-
ly attacking other proposed plans of leg
! lslation to aid American shipping. 1t is
! not now a question of other plans hut is
this plan good or bad? The subsidy plan
| is not made good by the fact that some
! other plan is bad. The bill affords oppcr-
tunity for fraud by providing that YES
/ sci can draw subsidy if her cargo space is
sold or contracted for, even if no freight
| is carried ~
/ The alignment that the bill Y ould aid
/ in the export Of agricultural products to
/ the temperate zone in Asia IS absurd.
/ since the agricultural products of the
temperate. zone of Asia are already in
! competition with us in the world mar
| kets.
The hin discriminates against the sail
| ing vessels and in favor of steam vessels.
against Small steamers and in favor of
|
| 1t puts the sailing vessels and small
steamers at the mercy of the big mon
| opoly, which will get the bulk of the sub
| sidy, because of the excessive premium
paid to the fast mail and passenger ships
| owned exclusively by the great corpora
! tions.
1t is obviously designed that existing
! ships and those contracted for may alb
/ sorb the whole of the 50 0G0. 0G0 subsidy
l n Tn hf,fI r,av n
! Tank steamers, which are numerous, are
making large profits now, and will get
great part of the subsidy. They are near
ly all owned BY the Standard Oil Com
pany.
There is no provision in the bill stip
ulating that American labor shall get any
share of the subsidy. which it is claimed
is to be paid out for the benefit of labor.
Our highest duty commercially is to pro-
tect American citizens from discriminat-
| ing laws and to prohibit monopoly.
Both parties voted for the Antitrust
bill in the House. and denounced trusts
in their national platforms this year. vet
the Antitrust bill is now relegated TO
the rear, and a bill creating one of the
greatest of all trusts is urged to the
front. Was this programme designed to
fool some of the people before election, or
all of the people after eIection?'
j.. w. Lee, of Pennsylvania, another
strong Republican, and prominent Pitts
burg attorney and legal adviser of the In
dependent Oil Producers Association.
stated last night that the measure is sim
ply a scheme to benefit the joint owners
of the International Navigation Company
and the Standard Oil Trust.
Regarded With Alarm.
Il have Examined the bill with great
care said he, "and regard it with posi-
tive alarm
"The bill allows subsidy to American
owners upon foreign built ships now en-
gagged in foreign trade. and shuts the door
against the purchase in the future of for
eign- built ships to be employed by Ameri-
can owners in carrying American mer-
chandise. How this will promote the
commerce and increase the foreign trade
of the United States cannot be shown. Ii
will have exactly the opposite effect. II I
will retard the commerce and decrease |
the foreign trade of the United States be- |
cause IL will permit such subsidized own |
ers to destroy competition upon the ocean |
and levy tribute by excessive freights |
upon American shippers
"If the shipper and not the ship owner |
is the one who is sought to be benefited |
then the largest opportunity should be |
preserved to buy and employ ships. AS |
progressive n statesman as James G. /
Blaine vas in favor of free ships 1t re-
quires no argument to prove that such
policy is favorable to commerce and in
creased foreiRn trade. Such trade needs
encouragement, not an embargo. The
ship owner needs no protection. Ships
can ROW he bailt in n,the United States as
cheaply as in-ioreign countries; therefore
shipbuilding requires no gift from the
4 fNfaaa. as.HaW Hrfa.
shape Of taxes.
AS an example of the wrong and in
jury which this bill Will do, let me cite
the case of the Standard Oil Company |
which owns directly or indirectly thirty
four ships-fOTeign- built ships-upon |
which 1t will receive annually $500 600 for !
ten years or 5000 0CO in all. These ships
are wholly engaged in carrying its own
oil They will carry just as much oil !
without as with the subsidy unless the
subsidy enables it TO crowd out of the
foreign trade small shippers who are at
present engaged in shipping petroleum |
and are not so fortunate as to have owned
their ships from the date mentioned in
the bill. The point l make Is that no
oil will be exported to be used
in foreign countries Commerce will not
be promoted or the foreign trade in Amer
lean petroleum increased II IS a gift by |
the Government Of the peoples money Of
ss 600 0G0 to aid a great monopoly TO still
further destroy competition.
Il desire to make these further points
against this bill,
'First-It takes the property Of one
man to be directly given to another and
would be a more intOlerable exercise OF
power than that which brought on the
American Revolution. 1t has not even the
Justification of being taken for a public
use
"Second-It Indirectly violates that pro-
vision of the Constitution which says that
no tax or duty shall be imposed on ar
ticlcs exported from any State. For
bounty on tonnage carried in subsidized
ships is equivalent to a duty imposed On
necessarily carried in unsubsi-
iized ships 1t is none the less real be-
cause it is Indirect.
"Third-Ths bill puts the subsidy in
the shape of a contract. and no matter
how odious or pernirious it may be found
o be- it must remain and lie endured be-
cause no law can be passed, the CJnsti-
ution says, impairing the obligation of a
No consideration is given for
his contract; why fasten it on The peo-
ple?"