The Washington times., 1901-12-24
UNDER THE CAPlTOL'S DONE.

pressed by the friends CT the shipping
subsidy measure that it will have mucl
smoother sailing in the present Congress
than it had In the last. Bills idcntica
in their provisions have been introduced
into the Senate and House by Senator
Frye and Representative Grosvenor. re.
spee:ively. and Immediately after the holi-
| dav recess is over 1t is believed that the
measure will be strongly pressed. It is
not known that any poll has been taker
! for the purpose of ascertaining the rela-
/ tive strength OF the friends and oppo-
ments of the bill. but those who have II
in charge believe that the opposition has
4 been greatly weakened by the elimina-
/ tion of the especially Objectionable fea-
! lures of last years bill.
As is well known. those who believed in
! the general principle of steamship subsi-
/ dies, hut were antagonistic to the partic-
! ular bill then pending. based their oppo-
siiion chiefly upon the ground that the
major portion of the benefits would
I inure 10 the steamers Of high speed, the
ocean greyhounds," as they are called.
The argument was made that it was I'M
just in paying freight bounties, to attach
so much Importance TO speed. and TO make
so much difference between 4 vessel of
twenty knots and one OF twelve or four
teen; especially as the great bulk of the
freight is carried in the slower vessels.
The new bill classes the sums to be
paid under two general heads-mail steam
ships and subsidies for freighters that do
not carry mails. To the first the pay
ments are rated according to size and
speed. because large size is an element
OF safety, and speed is always a matter
OF Importance in mail carriage. But even
in regard TO these vessels the payments
range only from 1.5 cents per gross ton
for each 100 nautical miles sailed TO POS
cents Tor the same distance. while under
the old bill the range was from 0.4 cent
to % cents These payments to mail
steamers are nominally for carrying the
mails. but il is. of course. understood that
they are intended as a general subsidy.
In the case of the regular freighters,
which carry no mails. there is practically
no distinction made on account OF size.
and none whatever with reference to
speed. There is first a general allowance
Of / cent per gross registered ton for
each 100 nautical miles sailed by either
a sail or steam vessel: and then for each
vessel OF more than 1.500 gross registered
tons, completed and registered after the
passage Of the act. 0.25 cent per ton for
each 100 nautical miles sailed. which lat
ter is in addition to the cent first pro-
yided for This provision that isew ves-
sells of not exceeding 500 tons shall not
receive any subsidy is regarded by the
friends of the measure as Just and
proper discrimination to be made. be-
- -
days of rapid marine development to en-
courage the building of very small ships.
The new bills also exclude foreign built
ships owned wholly or in part by Ameri-
cans from the benefits of the act. thus
removing another objection which was
stoutly urged against the old measure
II is not to be supposed. though, that
the strong opponents of subsidies. in gem
eral. are satisfied with the changes made
in these bills II is claimed that the fail
ure 10 draw a time limit on the general
subsidy of cent per ton is a serious de-
feet; that the bin is faulty in not pre-
scribng a maximum amount to be paid
under its provisions; that the omission Of
the provisions contained in the old bill
prohibiting monopolies and combinations
among shipbulders. detracts greatly from
the merits of the new measure. II is not
improbable that some of these criticisms
may be obviated by amendment in COM
mittee, for it is certain that the friends
OF the measure are desiTOus OF strength
ening il in every possible way that viii
not tend 10 defeat the main purpose in
view. which is of course, the building up
of our merchant marine. They are not
disposed to haggle much over small mat
tiers connected with it.
Although not much has been said about
them. the present Congress. OF. in a mar
rover sense. the House OF Representa-
tives. will have its usual grist of con-
tested election cases TO deal with. There
are three House committees on elections,
and in Committee No. / there are three
cases now pending. which will be taken mp
promptly after Congress reconvenes
These are Moss versus Rhea, from the
Third district OF Kentucky. Spears versus
Burnett, from the Seventh district OF Ala
bama. and Horton versus Butler. from
the Twelfth district Of Missouri
These contests are nearly always par
tisan in character. and not infrequently
they are decided very largely upon par
tsan grounds-not Intentionally. as
rule, but because II seems TO be quite
natural even for men occupying seats in
Congress to believe re statements OF
their own party friends rather than those
OF their opponents. Thus we find that
when the Republicans are in control OF
the House the contestants are generally
Republicans. while the condition is re-
yersed when the Democrats are in the
ascendency in that body. Unsuccessful
candidates feel that they have a better
chance when their cwn party is in power.
Accordingly Ii is not surprising that in
the three cases pending before the COM
mittee named the contestants are all Re
pubiicans The grounds Of these contests
are those with which the public is so IA
miliar in connection with such cases
arising in the South. The allegations are
intimidation. false registration false
counting. and the entire list Of fraudulent
practices usually charged.
As 10 their merits ii is impossible at /
this time TO say anything definite. as the /
committee has not yet begun the work Of 4
investigation. and none Of the proofs I
have heen presented on either side The /
Kentucky case is set for hearing Janu- /
airy 8. and the Alabama case the 18th. The |
Missouri record is still incomplete. Con /
Tested election cases usually create much |
feeling, and there is no reason to sup |
pose that there will be any exception to !
he rule. II is frequently remarked by /
old members that when the House is 1
somewhat evenly divided the decisions OF |
contests are generally more doubtful in
their equities than when the majority is
SO large as to stand in no special need of /
being increased. There have been cases,
however decided In closely balanced
Houses with most scrupulous regard
FOR the evidence and the law