The ranch. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1902-1914, 1906-07-15


no responsibility for statements made
by contributors.
National Grange Objects to Subsidy.
The ship subsidy bill, which has been
before congress for some time, is
strenuously objected to by the mem
hers of the National Grange, and at
all meetings the subject is discussed
and protests forwarded to the mem
hers of congress. The Grange says
the present bill differs from its prede-
cessors only in that its promoters have
tried to cover up the words subsidy"
and bounty" by substituting there
for the word "subvention." "A sub
sidy by any other name would smell
as rank" is the statement of members
of the Grange. "The language OF the
bill is obscure perhaps Intentionally
so. but it is clear that under it there
would be taken during the next ten
years from the money raised by tax
ing the people about $50,000,000, which
would be given to a small number OF
persons building or owning steam or
sailing vessels. In return for this I'M
mense amount of money what are the
tax layers of the country, and especi-
cit is claimed that as a result of
this system of bounties the number OF
vessels built or owned by our citizens
and engaged in the foreign trade will
be largely increased; that this will
cause a reduction in freight rates, and
that this saving in freight, in so far as
it affects the expectation of farm pro-
ducts, would go largely to the Am
erican farmer. There is absolutely
no proof of this contention, but on
the contrary, all past experience has
shown that it is the foreign purchaser
who gets the benefit of lower freight
rates. Lower ocean rates means low
err rates from Canada, the Argentine
Republic, Russia, India, Australia, and
other competing countries, and as 1t
is the competition of the products OF
those countries that fixes prices IN
the foreign market, a reduction In
freight charges would simply mean
lower prices to the foreign consumer.
In fact, it can be shown that the re-
suit of the subsidy policy would be TO
encourage foreign competition with
our farm products in a neutral market.
If the effects of this legislation would
be, as it's advocates claim, to increase
the number of vessels owned by cltl-
Gems of the United States engaged IN
the foreign trade, it is evident that
such vessels would displace certain
number of foreign vessels which are
now carrying our farm products TO
foreign ports These displaced YES
sells would have to seek freight else
where, and their owners would natur-
ally try to increase the export trade
in farm products of competing nations
by carrying such products as cheaply
as possible. The result would be to
stimulate competition with our surplus
farm products in theneutral markets
in which they are now sold. 1t would
seem there is no good reason why the
American farmer should tax himself
in order that foreigners can buy our
farm products at a lower price.
when challenged to show how the
subvention scheme will beneht the
American farmer, it's advocates 1all
back on vague generalities as to the
trade following the flag, and the IN
crease in exports which they claim
would result from having our goods
sbipped in vessels owned by our own
citizens. But they have never Deen
able to show that foreigners would
buy more of our goods merely because
they were shipped in American yes
sells instead of foreign vessels. For
eigners are very much like Americans
in one respectfully want to buy
things as cheaply as possible, and they
will buy American goods when they
are as good and as cheap as those
of other countries. If our goods can
be sold cheaply enough the foreigner
will buy them.
IF our products cannot compete IN
price in natural markets with those OF
other countries, we cannot expect the