The age-herald., 1902-03-15
FAULTS IF THE
 SUBSIDY BILL  Foraker VIII Support Il But
 Explains Why THINKS DUTIES BETTER
McLaurin and HarrIs Opposed Measure On Ground That 1t Is UnconstItti-
 tional-cIass Legislation of
 the Worst Kind. < N .-

-,'
 "ashnston, March f4-ThrougAosz434ha session Of the Senate today the shin, snh- sluy Dill was under consideration. The measure was discussed by Mir Fnra,.ar or ohio' MT. McLaurin of Mississtppi and MT Harris of Kansas. Mir. Foraker. sup- porteo the Dill, although he admit ed that ne would have preferred to build up the Amerlcan merchant marine by the levy>- Ing of discriminating duties
 Both MT. McIAurn and MT. Harris an posed the measure on the ground, In their Judgment, 1t was not constitutional They maintained that 1t was class leKfslation "hich amounted to little short of rob oery of the people for the benefit of a Ie" snip owners. MT. Harris made the point that the United States now was paying more to the American line,fo the carrying of ocean malls than wasApai to foreign ships for greater service.
 MT. Foraker said that while he ex- pected to vote for the bf1l. he was not entirely satisfied with 1t. Ever since he had studied the question he had been or the opinion that the most equitable and scientific way to rehabifftate inc merchant marine of the United States would be to inaugurate the policy of dis eliminating duties under which the. l fathers of the country made our mer. chant marine the pride of the country.
 Could Not Return to Policy.
 He was of the opinion that under the circumstances it would be impossible to return to the policy of discriminating | duties.
 He had followed the trend of legisla- | ton closely enough to learn that 1t was highly necessary to have majority in favor of any proposition before it was enacted into law. He had consulted with his colleagues in the Senate and recog- r nized the impossibiity of securing a ma 3 jority in favor of the policy of discrim- mating duties. Being desirious of build- } ing up the merchant marine, he looked therefore for the next best scheme for accomplishing this result. The senator in charge of the bill Mir. Frye. had stated clearly the objections to the adoption of the plan of discriminat- ing duties. twenty-one treaties being an absolute bar to that policy.
 The Relative Cost.
 As to the relative cost of building and operating ships under the American flag MT. Foraker said the preponderance of the evidence was against the proposition that the vessels could be built or oper- ated in this country cheaply as they | could be built and operated abroad In proof Of the greater cost of ships con- | structed in America, MT. Foraker read a letter from President Baker of the Att lantic Transportation Line showing that | the contract price for two ships built for that company at Belfast, Ireland was | f292. 900, while the cost of two ships identically the same in construction built | at Camden, N J., was R2sO 100 MT. For nker asserted that the International Nav | igation Company had made no money by carrying mails under the post subsidy act and did not care for a renewal of its | contract.
 The proposed legislation. he said, was | such as to enable the United States to | build and construct ships and fly the flag of the merchant marine in every port of | the world.
 l MT. McLaurin, Mississippi said he was | opposed. not only to the bill. but to the principles it represents. Whatever hs Rfv- en by the government a subsidy. MT. McLaurin charged. would be simply a contribution to the dividends of those | purpose of encouraging ship building in this country. He said there had been no decadence in ship building in the Uni ted States; that that industry Is now ex- periencing boom such as it has not had in fifty years He called the proposed United States building company com bination to em ploy labor as economically as possible.
 Tax Payers Should Pay. l Referring to his amendment introduced recently requiring the names of persons. firms and members of corporations that would be benefited by the bill to be made public. MT. McLaurin said that the tax payers should know to whom their money is paid. Speaking of that portion of his amendment prohibiting Senators and members from enjoying any of the | benefits of the bil he said that the nec- essity of eliminating ones interest when 1t conflicts with duty to the United States Is apparent. He cited the charges against Ambassador Clayton and said a gov | ernment official must not have his duty on one side and his private interests on | the other.
 He said he was as anxious as any Re- publican Senator to rehabihtate the | American merchant marine, but he would rather not see the American flag float over our merchant vessels than to see one stained with the taint of money which did not legally belong to its owner. | MT. Harris of Kansas took constitutional | ground against the bill. maintaining it | was class legislation, such Justice Miller had denounced as on the verge of l robbery
 | Mir Harris declared that under the pending bin there would be few bidders l for the mail contracts and that the price | paid by the United States for carrying | the mails on the ocean would be at least twice as much as that paid by Great Britain for similar service. and twice | as much as this country would have to pay foreign vessels for carrying the mails.
 l The principal objection he had to the | proposed mail subsidies as well as the | present subsidies was that they were too | large He asserted that the United States | nov was paying the American line twice | as much as was paid the Cunard line for carrying nearly twice as much mail mat | ter The proposed mail subsidies. he thought inequitable and unjust i The Senate, at 4:So went into executive