The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1901-12-25
Questions Answered by Com
missioner of Navigation.
TWO SUBSIDY BILLS
In What Respects the Measures
Are at Variance.
DUTIES TO OTHER COUNTRIES
Some Objections of the United States
Are Involved in This
Connection.

From The Joesrrat Bureau, Room 10, Post
BHtsddIsgs Washington.
Washington, Dec. 25.-Eugene r. Cham
berlain, whose work and reports as COM
missioner of navigation have brought him
into prominence in connection with the
proposed shipping subsidy legislation. has
consented to answer informally some
questions presented by me, which are now
occasioning great deal of controversy:
What is the difference between the FRYE
subsidy bill and the bill of last session?
The first difference is the sharp distinction
it draws between mail steamers and cargo
steamers. The Frye bill treats of mail steam
ers in separate title or chapter The former
bill considered all steamers in the same chap
ter The distinction existed in fact lust as
much under the old bill as under the new. but
it seemed impossible to make clear the differ
ence which is one of marine construction and
postal policy. The majority of 14-k knot foreign
setamers are or have been under mail con-
tracts. The criticism was made last year that
the mail steamers drew most subsidy and car
ried least bulk cargo 1t was true, but about
as pertinent as to complain that a general
gets more pay than captain but does less
lighting. There can be no confusion of
thought in this bill between the mail steamer
and the cargo steamer. The former generally
will come into direct competition with foreign
subsidies, the latter generally will not
The principal difference in substance is the
omission Of the contract feature in the gem
eral subsidy. That feature committed the
nation to the policy for fifteen years, even
if the bill should have been repealed the next
year. 1t necessitated a money limit to the
policy The. omission of that feature does
not commit the nation to the policy or to any
expense, longer than the president and con-
gress see fit to continue it. 1t gives con-
gress much frmer grasp upon these ex-
penditures than it has for example, over
continuing appropriations in river and harbor
bills. Right here let me say that there has
been much nonsense-to use no stronger. word
about the expenses under this general sub
sidy. On the basis of last years navigation
the cost would have been about ST. 100, ,O0O
if every American ship involved had com
piled with all the conditions. One of these
was free transportation of the mails for which
about $125,000 was paid to vessels concerned
Expenditures Unchanged.
What would have been the expenditures un-
der the mail contract chapter?
Precisely what they were. The bill does not
affect existing contaGct5 Qnr contract with
the Oceanic Line TO Australia does not expire
until 1910, and with the Admiral line to
involved for years The contract with the
Red D to Venezuela is to be renewed in less
than month for ten years, SO that is not
involved The contract with the New York
and Cuba mail expires next September. and
if 1t gets the maximum possible under the new
bill, it would receive for it's new mail con-
tract about 900 more than it now gets
and the postmaster general does not now pay
it the maximum under the law Of 1891.
The wi hn Ann +o
Southampton does not expire until 1905 In
some quarters it has always been regarded
as an impertinence that there should be an
American line to Southampton. Even if the
postmaster general should renew it's contract
under the maximum terms of the bill that
company in 1906 would get about $240 900 adj
ditional on its complete service. You know
as we'll as l do that the real hostility to the
bill is not based on an amount of $270. 600
four years off, which two American COM
panes might get, if the postmaster general
deems proper With their eyes open men who
swallow a river and harbor camel will not
strain at that subsidy gnat.
Th@real hostility to the ocean mail chap
ter is to the new ocean mail routes when it
makes possible. OF the cost of these l can
say that for a sum about equal to British
subsidies to the Peninsular and Oriental.
Canadian Pacific, Royal Mail Cunard and
White Star lines we can have better mail
service than theirs to Japan, China, the
Philippines, Australia, Hawaii, South America
and across the Atlantic to northern Europe
and that a superior South American service
would cost no more proportionately than the
German service to Africa. Suez canal tolls
will enable US to secure these general results
in spite of the greater cost of our ships and
the larger pay of our crews. ] say the real
hostility mean the vociferous hostility
which seeks cover under American line"
standard Oil'-which by the way on last
years voyages would have received the royal
grant of So, 500 not enough to pay for the
boiler plate opposition to the bill-'cam-
paign corruption funds Pacific mail job
berry, and all that sort of thing. Opposition
on principle to all kinds of government aid
regardless of form or amount or of the in
terests aided, of course commands respect.
International Obligations.
Why does not the bill make the general
subsidy proportionate to the cargo carried,
if its object is to promote the export trade?
The United States has pledged itself re-
peatedly that if it pays a bounty on ex-
ports in American ships it will pay the same
bounty on exports in foreign ships. France,
Italy and Japan in their navigation bounty
projects have carefully observed the spirit
as well as the letter of similar treaties. We
cannot for moment consent that the United
States shall be less scrupulous in observing
it's international obligations. 1t is subter
fuge to pretend to base navigation bountes
on the size Of the ship, and then provide that
in fact they shall be paid export cargo
carried in the ship. The subsidy, in fact,
would be an export bounty, and no amount
Of pettifogging can disguise the fact
Take the treaty of the United States with
Hamburg and Bremen. 'And they further
agree that whatever may be lawfully exported
or re-exported by one party in it's own ves-
sells to any foreign country may in like man
ner be exported or re-eXported in the YES
sells Of the other party. And the same boun-
ties. duties and drawbacks shall be allowed
and collectsd whether such expectation or
re-exportation be made in vessels of the one
party or the other With that pledge
which we have honorably kept for seventy
five years-before him the American who con-
tinues to advocate subsidy based on export
cargo means only one of these three things:
First-That the United States should, for
example, pay the North German Lloyd and
the Humburg American lines, which own rs
per cent of the ocean steamers of Bremen
and Hamburg the same subsidies that are
proposed for American ships-a plan which,
of course, would help foreign shipping more
than American, because there is much more
of it.
Second-That the United States should pay
bounties on exports to American and not to
German vessels, and deliberately break faith
with another nation-a price too big to pay
for American ships, even if we have to go
without them forever.
Third-That the way to attack the shipping
bill is to lead men to believe that direct