Washington sentinel., 1901-01-12


OF these competitors so as to per
init the protected shipowner tc
raise ocean ireights high enough
to enable them, as they claim, tc
pay their sailors protected Amer
ican wages" and incidentally earn
for themselves, in increased profits,
the reward of protected" Ameri-
can capital.
Is there any misstatement here1
If so, it will be in order Tor the ad-
vocates OF the subsidy bill to ex-
plain it, for these are among the
reasons they give Tor the passage
Of their bill. Not, indeed, that
they intend to raise the price OF
ocean rights; on, no. This is by
them stoutly denied. In some nys-
terious way ocean ireights are to
decline, and again, profits. in some
other mysterious way, are to 60 up,
in order to reward capital and
labor on the line Of the water mark
OF high protection.
Now, will this subsidy measure
raise or will it lower ocean freights1
This is the question which every
statesman in Congress will no
doubt put to himself. He will no
doubt not overlook the fact that a
general advance OF, say, o per cent
in ocean ireIghts means a CORE
spending loss to the farmers of the
nation on all the wheat, corn, cot
ton, hops, tobacco, meat products,
and on all other agricultural sta
ples, whether these are to be ex-
ported or whether sold for use in
the home market. This point is
highly significant.
There is yet one other and very
important consideration which will
no doubt be given this subsidy bill,
and that is, What action will be
possible by the shipping men when
once they succeed in driving away
foreign competition to an extent
which would place the price-6xing
for ocean freight into their own
hand7
Granted that this is a possibility,
and what must we further grant,
This, that it would be the most
dangerous power ever given ~
legislation into the hands of men
eager Tor money. With power to
raise and lower ocean ireights at
will, they would have the power to
raise and lower the home price of
several billion dollars worth Of
agricultural staples at any and at
all times. such power would i'm
poverish the farmers OF this nation,
and destroy the Republic.
There is yet one more consider
alton which the merits OF the case
deserve to have brought forward.
We find that the shipowners and
shipbuilders are working with
great zeal tor the adoption of their
measure, urging its passage on the
score of its utility 10 this nation.
But we believe that there is Just
ground for doubting their sincerity
in the matter. Decidedly so. if we
are to judge from their former
statements. BY referring to the
Philadelphia papers Of July 81,
1895, it will be seen that at a con-
vention in that city, at which al
most all the Atlantic coast ship
owners and shipbuilders were pres
ent, they unanimously passed res
olutions condemning the protec-
tion OF shipping at the expense Of
agriculture. Their chiei spokes-
man, Mr.. Charles II. Cramp, then
said that shipping should only be
protected when in the same bill
there should likewise be provided
| protection for the staples Of agri-
culture. Accordingly there was a
resolution passed unanimously for
the Joint protection Of shipping
and OF agricultural staples by a
bounty on exports.
Realizing the inequality and the
economic unsoundness Of protect
ing shipping at the expense Of agri
culture. Mr.. Cramp then said:
"When we went to Congress and
asked a bounty for ourselves we
committed a grave error, aud am
going to do all can to repair it. "
These remarks were applauded to
the echo, and yet we find that in
the face OF all this The shipping
men are now striving with all zeal
and vehemence to do just wha
they previously condemned as an
injustice and an economic wrong
In view OF these several presen
tations, it now remains to be con
sldered whether in an attempt al
protecting shipping this protection
act is not likely to seriously injur,
the primary industry, agriculture
Having come to the conclusio