The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-02-01
Circulation Statement
The Subsidy Bill.

the success of the Subsidy steal at thi!
session of Congress- the country ought tc
be grateful TO him fol forcing action upon
the natural opponents of this iniquitou:
legislation. His course has unleashed the
dogs of war. and. we hope, killed the las
chance of enacting the Subsidy bill this
side of Inauguration day.
The measure in question reminds us Of
a sugar schedule in a Republican Tariff
bill. Nobody knows what it means-unti
after its passage-excepting the benef-
Charles. Mr.. Frye asserts that adverse
criticism of his principals pet project is
based on the Hanna bill of two years ago
whereas the present proposition is angelic
compared with the other, IL Congress ant
the public only knew it. The main trc;ss...
is that the Subsidy bill 49,
cunceal and deceive is sealed
book to most people. Even as shrewd al
Investigator as Senator Morgan is COM
PEELED to admit that he has been 'fox hunt
ing all over the measure. without strik-
ing scent that would help him to an ac-
CITRATE conception of the approximate
amount it is proposed to grab from the
Treasury and bestow upon she combination
OF dozen transportation magnates and
their most influential friends.
That the Subsidy bill Is not a measure
for the general advancement of the Amer
lean shipping interest has been sufficient
ly shown in the Senate debate and in the
columns of the unsubsidized press This
is not only the popular and the honest
view. but is also the one taken by peo-
pie who, one would suppose from the
speeches OF Messrs. Hanna. Frye. and De-
pew. are TO share in the bounty. In COM
munication TO Congress. the firm Of
Charles NJ Tayior's Sons. managers of the
Philadelphia Transatlantic Line a con-
Germ employing eight steamers of seven
thousand TO seven thousand five hundred
tens burden. have this to say:
III, as must be assumed To be the case. il is
the desire Of the promoters of the Subsidy bin
to advance American commerce and American
shipbuilding. we submit that it should be by
means of legislation whose benefit shall be opcn
10 all, rather than framed 80 az to exclude all
a favored few from participation in one Of
its most desirable features
The admission o. foreign-built tonnage TO
American registry. even coupled with an obliga-
lion 10 build in the United States an equal ION.
mage, Is privilege sufficiently valuable that /;
should not be restricted in the manner of the
present Senate bill We earnestly urpe tbst his
portion of the bill be amended so as 10 permit
within carefully defined limits any American
citizen or corporation who will undertake to
build in the United States a hrst-clsss steamer
on lines 10 meet modern commercial conditions
TO buy and have admitted TO American registry
a similar foreign built ship such offer to hold
good until specified number Of steamers should
be so constructed These are the terms on which
the st. Paul and ST. Louis were built and IL
these terms were made available for the general
public, it would seem 10 be an equitable incen-
tive 10 the upbuilding of American commerce and
American shipbuilding American principles
Should this suggestion, however not meet
with favor. there is an alternative which would
make the present Senate bill IS 727l much more
fair, namely-the elimination entirely of all
provision for the payment of subsidy 10 foreign
built vessels: then the senste bill would BE-.
open to the criticism OF special legislation. As
II Is in its present FORM the Senate bill IS 727)
instead Of serving 10 promote American commerce
in any large healthy way, tends really TO stunt
lis development. except through the medium Of
two or three favored corporations. into whose
hands the provisions Of the present bill very
largely divert fits benefits.
I'VE ourselves have for years been operating
established lines OF trans Atlantic steamers and
have for some time been laying our plans for
the building Of American steamers. as a part Of
. feet TO be engaged in trans Atlantic commerce.
but lac passage OF measure like the present
Senate Subsidy bill would put US under such
cumbersome handicap with respect TO COMPETE
tors. whom this bill especially iavors, that we
may be entirely barred from the consummation
Of our plans in this respect"
II we remember correctly, one OF Sena-
tor Hanua's chief arguments in support
of the Subsidy bill before the Senate was
that il was a measure necessary TO the
building of steamships in American Yards
in competition with the plants. experience
and cheap labor of England and Scotland
our knowledge, anywhere admitted that
the domestic shipbuilding industry is al
ready operating under such exceptional
advantages secured by law, that for some
years. ton for ton, and class for class,
steamships have been constructed In the
United States as cheaply as, II not cheaper
than. they could be anywhere in Europe,
In 1863. the late John Roach. when under
examination before a committee OF Con-
gress, testified to his belief that II the
Government would take off the duty on Dig
iron to be used in ship construction. II
would be easy 10 compete with the Old
World America he said, has lost her
commerce, and what has she obtained in
exchange for It? Simply the right of
few men TO charge nine dollars per ton. in
gold, on the Importation OF pig iron" There
has been a revolution in the iron and steel
Industries since 1863. Now pig iron and
steel products can be so economically
produced in this country that thousands
Of tons Of ship material were annually
exported for some years until the de-
mands Of home ,shipyards became suiii-
Client. as now. TO absorb the entire output.
Congress soon adopted the suggestion of
Mr.. Roach, but IL an ampliGed form that
that enterprising but unfortunate pioneer
in The shipbuilding industry could MT
have dreamed Of asking when he offered
#. In his report for 1899 the Commits
sloner of Navigation said:
Everything needed in building and cqappins
In The United States ship for the foreign trade
for trade between the Atlantic and Pacific
coasts Of the United States, Is now admitted
nee Of duty. and has been admitted FOR some
years Congress began the policy Of free ma
terials for shiphuilding for the foreign trade in
isl2, and has steadily purs'ied and expanded that
policy"
In 1869 Mr. Charles II. Cramp was be-
fore the Congressional committee inves-
tigating the decay of our mercantile ma
rine, with his rival, Mr.. Roach. In an
swer TO question from Senator Morrill,
Mr.. cramp said that the average rate Of
duty on materials entering into the con-