The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-04-27

many and England. Suppose these two nations, which, practically speaking, do all of our carrying, had swept each others commerce from the seas who then would have carried these two billions of dollars worth of exports and imports3 What would have taken the place of the tonnage which now does aine-tenths of our business? The loss to the American people through the congestion of business would have been incalculable. When that war comes, if 1t does come, woe betide us If we ind ourselves without a mer- chant marine of our own"
 Mir. Gardner said that the fact that our shipbuiiding industry is in bad condition is patent to every one. as not one single keel had been laid in an American yard for a steel steam ship for foreign trade since June. 1901. He said that the members of Congress were divided into three classes on this question. one believing it to be the best plan to abandon the field to the foreigner. another believing that q de- siRable result can be obtained by the repeal of the existing navigation laws. and the third believing in the policy of constructive legislation. ''Of course, those who believe in a policy of inac- ton will oppose the bill" he said,
 
 port the principle of the establish ment of a commission to investigate the question and reconcile the con- filcting views of all who desire the upbuilding of our foreign carrying trade"
 He mentioned the various remedies for the present condition as, first, the repeal of the navigation laws; second, discriminating duties; third, discrimi- A bounties; fifth. government aid to shipbuildipg; sixth. mail subsidies, but said that no measure had yet been presented to Congress embodying any one or more of these plans which had met with the approval of that body.
 Every nation engaged in shipping to any extent subsidies it's merchant marine in one form or another" he said, especially during infancy. The subsidies of our rivals constitute only a part of our disadvantage In compet- ing for the unprotected commerce of the high sea, Far more serious is the question of wages. The difference In the labor cost of building, and opera tion is the chief root of the difacuIty we hnd in competing at sea with Eu- ropean nations" MT. Gardner said that 1t was shown from actual pay rolls on vessel of four thousand tons with SPVeo ot rom ten 70 eleVen knots an hour, costing to build in this country about S30o,000 and $s0.- 900 less if built in England. that an American crew would receive in wages $6,000 annually more than an English crew. and that another $1, 900 must be added to the annual cost of running this ship under the American flag ow- ing to the greater cost of American ratIons required by the law of 1898.
 "No one will deny" ile said in ring ing tones. 'that our high rate of wages in this country is the direct re- suit of our protective system. Even free traders admit this although they claim that the high rate Is nominal | rather than actual. owing to the cor respondingly high prices which pro- | lection also encourages. Be that as it may, we have adopted the policy of taxing all the people for. the upbuild- | ing and maintenance of our great i'm dustries, believing that the result in | greater prosperity far more than com | pensates the people for this exaetion. In pursuing this course we have left our foreign shipping reft of the last vestige of protection, granting 1t no assistance at all, except in the form of mail subsidies in the last decade, and in the decade prior to the Civil War