The Tucson citizen. [volume] (Tucson, Ariz.) 1901-1928, 1902-03-04
TIFF, SHIP SUBSIDY STEAL.


The greatest of the contemplated
steals of the Republican majority Ill
Congress was called up for consldera-
+ior in the Senate yesterday. This Is
known as the ship subsidy Dill 1t mas
boon before Congress before, and may
no nroperly considered as the climax
of tho Protection superstition that I'M
fortunately the American people nave
long suffered from. There is no room
TO question that subsidies are on Ihe
same logical basis as protective tarins,
and being so, they would presumably
follow the same course. Let ship
owners be subsidized out OF the puDllc
treasury. and a cry for similar direct
subsidies will go up from every IN
dustrv that cannot make the Indirect
subsidies of the protective tarin serve
If II ships. why not exports? Euro
pean nations, now cited as examples
of shin subscribers, do subsidiZe some
exports with a view to the CONNER
cia1 invasion of other countries, Snail
we shrink from equipping our export
ers for that kind of warfare? 1t has
been seen now one tariff breeds an
other, Why shall not one subsidy breed
another?
There is no logical reason for con-
filming subsidies to the encouragement
of international trade. If it is good
public policy to substitute ships Tor
foreign commerce, it must be good
public policy to substitute ships and
railroads for domestic commerce. IL
1t is good public policy to subsidze
commodities for export, it must be
good public poncy to subsidize COM
modities for home consumption. Does
any one doubt, at any rate, that thesa
extensions of subsidies can be urged as
plausibly as the ship subsidy, on
grounds of public policy? II, for ex-
ample, a protective tariff on wool for
the protection of American sheep
could be made an issue IN national
politics why not subsidy on wool
now that the protective tarff fails tt
protect it? We confront an exactly
parallel case now In the opposition to
the Babcock BILL the contention being
that protector" must be given to
every interest that demands protec-
ton.
But the subsidy system is likewise
climax in the simplicity of it's ap-
plcation. There is no chance of mis-
understanding it for 1t is open and
above board. Everybody can know who
gets it, and how much he gets
Everybody can know, also, whether
those who do get it divide up fairly
with their workingmen. according Il
the assumed intent Of the law. OF thu
indirect, or protective tariff subsidies
that Is not true. Ine benefciaries can
and in practice actually do, concea
lneir plumber 1t comes from so man
individual sources, and in ways s.
various and complicated, that no on
can keep track of it except the benef
Charles themselves. In consequence
their workingmen are systematicall
robbed of the share which protectiv
laws design that they should receive.
There is logically no reason why tn
Republican majority in Congress
should not exact a ship subsidy Law
1t is exactly in line with the laws tn
party has been passing for years.
it should develop gigantic trust
would do no more than the Mckinle
and Dingley laws have done in hur
dreds of cases. There is only one COZ
sstent reason for not enacting on
and that is that it would be MOI
complete exposure to the people of Il
Republican idea.
The subsidy bill aims to give abol
$500 200, 900 OF the taxpayers money
the already enormously rich sh
builders 1t is no secret that Maj
Hanna, the chairman of the Re2ubl
san national committee. e 1narr col
tract with the Rockefellers. Cramp
Scots and other millionaire owne
of ships and ship yards to put til
bill on the statute books. Men wi
are millionaires already are to be Il
chief beneticiaries. What are the pc
pie going to do about 1t?
----------o----------