The Republican journal., 1905-01-26
Mr.. Pendleton,s views.

united States.
MIR. PendletOn's Views.
Personally, l should like to find it
possible to build ships in the United
States as cheaply as they can be built
elsewhere. just at present that seems
to be impossible. But look forward
to the time when it will be possible
under some kind of stimulus~that will
create demand for American vessels.
1t has been suggested that if our peo-
pie were permitted to register as Amer
lean lot of foreign-built vessels they
would at first have them repaired here,
and finally built here under a natural
development Of our shipbuilding. / do
not look upon it in that way at all. |
know that more than a million tons OF
foreign vessels are at present owned by
American citizens, and have been So
owned for number of years. have
seen no appreciabe increase in the re-
pairs put upon those vessels in Amerl-
can shipyards as result OF that owner
ship. If those owners had them under
American instead of foreign registry
the actual fact of ownership would be
no different than it is now; therefore L
hold they should show a disposition to
repair in our shipyards if there were
anything in the argument put forth by
the advocates of free trade. But there
is absolutely no such disposition. On
the other hand, we are living under a
condition of high protection and artifi-
cially created prosperity. This seems
to be what the people want. 1t seems
to be out of all immediate probability
of change. 1t is condition, there
fore, to which American shipowners
must conform if they are to continue
in the business, rather than theory.
That is the way the matter is presented
to me. have been opposed subsidies;
have believed that it would be fairer
all around to protect our shipping, SO
long as it must be protected, by the
same instrumenta]ity that our other
interests are protected, so long as pro-
lection is needed. And some protec-
ton is needed for our shipping so long
as the protective policy remains in
force.
Hoped That the Commission Would Report
Discriminating Duties.
81 worked most assidulously last sum-
mer and fall i'll endeavoring to induce
the Democratic party to declare i'll
favor of discriminating duties. A few
VI lllC ICauCio vi lliC pau uiu ~ uC-
clare, and had hoped that the bill re-
discriminating duty bill. So, evidently,
had been the hopes of those leaders in
the Democratic party who are anxious
to help American shipping, who are
opposed to subsidies, and who thought
as | thought. In fact | went so far as to
draft a bill along the lines of discrimi-
mating duties-the most moderate and
mild form of a bill that was possible to
draw. | proposed to reduce the amount
OF the present duty on dutiable imports
) per cent on foreign vessels bringing
cargoes from their own ports, and to
also reduce the duty the same amount
on imports brought in American vessels.
On the goods now upon the free list
amounting to more than 43 per cent of
the Whole | also provided that there
should be an ad valorem duty of per
cent, provided those imports came in
vessels from countries other than their
own. AS soon as they came to us in
the ships of the country in which they
were grown or manufactured, or as
soon as they came in American vessels,
there would be no duty collected. I
ask, could there have been a more
simple or a more moderate form of dis
eliminating duties applied? lean think
of none that would have been etfectual.
| submitted that bill to the Merchant
Marine Commission, and am told that
1t was unanimously rejected, that not
one OF the Commissioners would stand
for a duty on non-dutiable imports.
Without such duty, but temporary in
l thought with the Democratic theory
of a "a riff for nnlv ond
ing to mere trit1e of per cent, any
form of discriminating duty bill would
be impracticable and ineffective. |
have also talked with those leaders
in the Democratic party in Congress
who believe in discriminating duties,
and they tell me that it is out of the
question to hope to place any duty on
non-dutlable imports. This nOtwith-
standing the average duty on our
dutlable imports amounts to 1903 per
cent.
What was there then to do? Accept
some form of government aid that
could be secured in order to create the
demand in the United States for home
built vessels that would eventually :
bring the cost of their construction
down to the foreign level without abat-
ing the wages of our workingmen, and
that would, possibly, eventually permit
of such economies in their operation on
a large scale as would bring that cost |
down to the level of the foreign cost, so
that in time we could compete with the
foreigner on his own terms Now, / |
would like to know what is the use of
theorizing on free ships-as a practical
vessel owner-under such circum-
stances? Such theorizing, such adher- |
ence to an impracticable plan, would
merely leave me out of the business |!
procession and in the camp of the ),
Believes the Question Should be Entirely !
Non-partisan.
Il find that the bill drafted by the J
Merchant Commission is satisfactory ,
to every Democratic member of the !
except in one respect; that |
it is satisfactory in every respect to one
of the Democratic members. OF course !
it is satisfactory in every respect to /
every Republican member of the Com
I do not mention this in order
to introduce political element into the
matter, because l deplore the sugges-
ton of political lines in the considera-
ton of this question, which is entirely
and should be equally non
partisan. l have talked, as have said,
~ l.