The Savannah morning news., 1902-03-07
cLAY AVID THE sHIP SUBSIDY BILL

CLAY AND THE SHIP SUBSIDY BILL
1t will hardly be denied by those who
have read Senator Clay's speech
against the ship subsidy bill that it is
& satisfactory answer to Senator Fryes
speech in support of that bill. 1t seems
! to us 10 be a much more convincing
! speech than Senator Frye's for the
! reason that it Is much franker.
Senator Frye and the other advocates
of the bill seek to convoy the impression
that Germany Great Britain and
/ France all heavily subsidize their mer-
| chant marine. If we are rightly in
formed they do not do anything of the
kind. France is the only nation that
gives a direct subsidy to ships, and she
is making no progress in the effort to
increase her commerce. Great Brit
ain spends a great deal of money
every year for the carrying of her
mails. but it must not be forgotten that
her empire is. in all parts of the world
and that it is important that she shall
be in quick mail communication with
each and every part of it. 1t is doubt
full, however. if she is more liberal in
her compensation to ships that carry
her mails than this country is to the
ships which carry its mails.
It Is true that Great Britain gives
about $500, 900 a year to nine of ner
merchant steamers. but she does not
give it as a subsidy. She gives it for
the privilege of controlling these
steamers in the time of war-of using
them as cruisers. Germany pays her
mail steamers well, but not any better
than we pay for mail service.
1t would be ever so much better for
the advocates of the ship subsidy bill
if its friends would deal with absolute
frankness with the public. The facts
are certain to come out. The wiser
plan is to bring them to the front at
the earliest possible moment
The advocates of the bill wish the
impression to go abroad that business
is stagnant in our shipyards. Unless we
are mistaken our shipyards have about
all they can do. 1t is our understand
ing that their capacity is not nearly as
great as that of the shipyards of either
Great Britain, Germany or France.
And yet we built more ships last year
than either Germany or France. The
figures as furnished by our Consul at
Havre are as follows: France built
III vessels having a tonnage of 232, 404
tons Germany III having a Tonnage of
,063 tons and the United States 303
having tonnage of 4S1,3s1 tons. OF
course Great Britain was far ahead of
any other nation She built $50 vessels
having a tonnage of 1,736,70S tons. 1t
must not be forgotten however. that it
is only within the last few years that
special attention has been given to
shipbuilding in this country. The War
of Secession paralyZed our shipbuild-
ing industry, and it took it long time
to get fairly started again. 1t is a safe
assertion that without any aid from the
government it will rival that of Great
Britain within a decade. We have the
material at less cost than it can he
had elsewhere in the world and our
labor. owing to labor saving machinery,
is not more costly than that employed
in the shipyards of Europe. 1t is as
serted by the friends of the measure,
that the objections to the bill that was
discussed in the last Congress are
avoided in this bill, but this must be a
mistake. The pending bill is in the in
terest of fast passenger steamers. 1t
doesn't give much to vessels that are
exclusively freight carriers. and hence
would not be of much benefit to far
mers. In fact it is doubtful if it would
be of any benefit to them The steam
ship companies have entered into a
combination to pool their earnings and
to advance freight rates.
1T is a safe conclusion that subsidy,
amounting to millions of dollars year,
would not bring about an appreciate
decline in the rates of ocean freight.