Republican news item. [volume] (Laport, Pa.) 1896-19??, 1903-01-22

lces Take fW iANiAl g tn' NitW
s.awa! OF she subsidy 10 the Collins
line. an American line ylhich made the
undisputed assertion that its ships al
WAYS beat the time of the rival Cunard
ers. Can any one believe that the
British government inceeased its sub
eidies to the north Atlantic mail carry
ing steamers from 100000 to f32O,O00
tas quoted la the American Economist
Of Oct 24) and then, as we are assured,
withdrew all subsidies, without di-
rect understanding that some portion
of this sum should be used to attack
the Collins subsidy? Golden evidently
did not SO believe. Nothing but a
mental smart at the large sums exact
ed could have induced him to ask the
question, "You are aware that it the
Collins line) ceased because the Amer
lean government withdrew the sub
sidy" and have the question recorded
in an official publication of the British
government, so it could always be seen.
Lord Monteagle said the fight for the
control of the north Atlantic was
long fight and hard one. With it
went the pecuniary gain of few cor
rupt and loss to the many virtuous.
The control of the north Atlantic also
apparently carried the control of our
best thought, 80 that there are many
Giddingses Thurberizing in our insti-
tutions of learning. And England's
growing influence In our legislation
justifies Jefferson's warning against
0th n
too much Of our foreign carrying trade.
Does any one in this world think the
Canadian reciprocity treaty of 1884
was carried through without corrup-
ton? And what influenced the man
who wrote of the Canadian attitude,
1860 to 1865, as developed by the kind
ly relations consequent on our recipro-
cal pursuit of wealth?
Does any one think that the law
which disgraced our statute books for
years. making the registered net ton
| mage of American vessels equal to their
gross tonnage, was procured without
| corrupt influences? The effect of this
| was that an American built steamer
under the American flag would pay al
| most twice as much port dues in port
of the United States as steamer of
| identical size and build under for
eign flag.
Can any one maintain that there were
| no corrupt influences cutting down the
| payments by this government to YES
sells under our flag in 1876? For the
| four years ending with 1875 this pay
| averaged $777961, and for the four
years ending with 1881 the payments
averaged $4O,634, and the percentage Of
| our commerce carried under our flag
dropped from 25.9 to 16 per cent. Dur
| ing the four years ending with 1873
England was assisting" her ocean go
| ing mail carriers at the rate of $5,474,-
| O35, and in the four years ending with
| 1881 this assistance averaged only 3D.
| 7S9, ,430-that is, while we reduced our
| subsidies by about 90 per cent Eng
| land reduced hers by about 81 per cent.
Few will pretend to believe that the
| makers of this wretched arrangement,
| if not bargain, were uninfiuenced by
| corrupt motives, unless they could have
| thought it was better for us to occupy
| the same relative position to England
| that the people Of Constantinople held
| to the Genoese in the fourteenth cen
| tury (see Gibbon, chapter 63, note 49),
| who would not allow them to fish in
their own harbor. Under this rule, as
is well known, the Greeks when at
tackled by Mohammed ii. presented the
noble spectacle of a people relying en-
| tirely on moral effect for its defense by
sea.
When in 1886 postmaster general
refused to pay American steamers mon
ey congress had appropriated, does any
one believe that no corrupt influences
were in play? Or in 1891, when under
| q decision of a secretary of the treas
ury foreign vessels under the German
flag paid less port dues in United States
ports than vessels built in the United
States and owned by citizen or citi-
zens thereof that the promptings to this
decision were uncontaminated by cor
rupt influences?
These examples OF wrong and injury
to American interests are not obscure.
They received notice in the newspa-
pers of the day. Most of them are
| spread on the pages or government re-
ports and have been commented on re-
peatedly since their occurrence. 1t
does not seem that teachers of history,
political science or any allied subject
can be ignorant of these cases and
others like them. But we venture the
assertion that in the majority of our
colleges the students are kept in total
| ignorance of such facts; that what Is
hoped will be their beliefs for life are
deliberately formed on suppressed
facts and false suggestions. Why is 1t?
The use and not the amount Of our
possessions is the important thing. 1t
is by using what we have that we earn
right to have more, and it all should
be employed to gain that wealth Of
character which is the end for which
all that we have is given. In love, in
unselflshness, in sympathy, in charity,
| I'm tOleran nee in these thinps shOllId tho