The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1902-03-15
FORAKER DEFENDS SUBSIDIES.
Apologies Also Because Bill Is Not
All 1t Should Be.

Apologies Also Because Bill Is Not
All 1T Should Be.
WASHINGTON, March 14.-At the con-
clusion of routine business today the
senate resumed consideration Of the ship
subsidy bill, and Mr.. Foraker (Ohio),
addressed the senate. He said that, while
he expected to vote for the bill, he was
not entirely satisfied with 1t. Ever since
he had studied the question he had been
of opinion that the most equitable and
scientific way to rehabilitate the mer-
chant marine Of the United States would
be to inaugurate the policy of discrim-
mating duties, under which the fathers
of the country had once made its
merchant marine it's pride.
He was of the opinion that under the
circumstances IL would be impossible to
attempt to return to the policy OF dis
eliminating duties. He had followed the
trend of legislation closely enough to
learn that it was highly necessary to
have a majority in favor of any legisia-
ton before it was enacted into law.
Taken to Task by Teller.
He had consulted his colleagues in the
senate and recognized the impossibility
of passing a resolution in favor of this
policy of discriminating duties. Being
DESTROYS OF building up the merchant
marine, he looked therefore for the next
best scheme for accomplishing this re-
suit.
The senator in charge Of the bill CMr.
Frye had stated clearly the objections
to the adoption Of the plan Of discrim-
mating duties, twenty-one treaties being
an absolute bar to that policy.
The next best plan in his mind for
the building up of the merchant marine
was embodied in the pending bill.
In response of an inquiry by Mr.. Teller
(Colo), Mr.. Foraker replied that he be-
lieved a majority of the Republican SEN
ators were opposed to the policy of dis
scriminatig duties.
notwithstanding the Republican plat
form of 1885, suggested Mr.. Teller.
Defends Action of Morgan.
Mr. Foraker replied that he had been
the chairman Of the platform committee
of 1896. He was SO constituted, he said,
that he had TO have views of his own
He was particularly contentious in 1896
about his views as to discriminating
duties; but what he wanted most was a
restoration of the American merchant
marine If he could not get majority
Of congress To join in his views he was
willing to active the great result, to
adopt the views of the majority.
Referring to the purported purchase OF
foreign steamship lines, Mr.. Foraker
said by some 1t had been regarded as TX
it were a crime The fact was that IL
any offense detrimental to the country
had been committed it had been commit
ted by the senate itself.
Mr. Morgan, he said, had purchased
the Leyland line in May, 1851, after con-
gress had under consideration for two
years the subsidy bill which failed of
passage in the last congress. After that
bill had failed the last hope of Mr.. Nor
IL, ,f7 I,,l fol 70 he
ground The inaction of the senate had
forced him to look elsewhere for the
ships which they needed. They had gone
abroad to spend their millions for ships,
instead of spending them in the ship
yards and among the laboring men of
this country.
McLaurin Answers Foraker.
Mr.. McLaurin CMass) followed Mr..
Foraker He was opposed, he said, not
only to the bill, but to the principles it
represents Whatever Is given by the
government as a subsidy, Mr.. McLau-in
charged, would be simply a contribution
to the dividends Of those engaged in
shipping, instead of for the purpose OF
encouraging ship building in this coun-
try
He said there had been no decadence In
shipbuilding in the United States, all
reports tending to show that that indus
try is now experiencing boom such as
it has not had in fifty years. He at
tackled the proposed United States Ship
building company. and called it a COM
bination formed for the purpose Of en-
ploying labor as economically as posi-
BILE
Referring to his amendment, intro
duced recently, requiring the names OF
persons, firms and members of corpora
tons that would be benefited by the blu
to be made public, Mr.. McLaurin said
that the taxpayers from whom the SUB
sidy must come should have an oppor-
tunity to know the individuals to whom