Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1906-08-02
KNOX NOMINEES.
CONTINUED from Page One.)

|
in preventing the consideration at the
last session. of the bill repeating com
pulsory pilotage. This bill seeks to
repeal the most oppressive and
burdensome monopoly that exists
under the forms of law an unbearable
burden upon the sails coaStwiSe fleet.
IL means thousands Of dollars to my
constituents interested in shipping.
! The law as it stands, compelS Il coast
| wise sail vessel To pay pilots for
services that she does not wish, does
not ~, j. ANA in many instances does
| not receive, III Drier that the pilot
| may b.. Supported. to render services
a few times each year to a vessel
engaged in foreign trade. Clearly the
most offensive form of %nb"idizing one
| individual at the expense, not Of the
whole country, but OF few ether i'll
dlVidualS who are elnteavoring to keep
alive of our most languiShing IN
duStrie$
Under this law prior to 1865 the sail
coaStWiSe fleet practically maintained
at the port Of Wilmington North Car
| DINA, A pilots. After vigorous local
effort the law was repeated and L or
pilots are now doing, with perfect
-'.t'iAlsi'llt!l ana success, All Inc WORK
that before that time Was done by a.
showing that AT least SO pilots under
the former system were being unneces-
Shflly and Erat,lilOu3ly supported ~
Tie coaStWiSe sail fleet. Many a sail
vessel pays Il larger sum for services
BY pilots never rendered, ANA not need
ed, than they are able under existing
conditions to pay dividends to their
owners.
| have been informed that the pilots
OF Norfolk. Virginia., annually declare
IN dividends TO themselves
from eight to nine thousand dollars
apiece as the proceeds OF the tribute
they nave levied upon the sail fleet
without rendering any services AT al.
Compromising the pilot fees by licens-
Ing VesS,l:; " ithout any reference what-
ever to the safety of their navigation.
Mr.. Gompers opposes The Legislation
that viii correct This. | favor it. Does
Mr.. McGillicuddy oppose il or favor it?
There is pending a bill intended to re-
ViNe the American Merchant Marine,
known a. the ship Subsidy Bin"
This bill MI. Gou.pers and his oFgani-
cation vigorously OPPOSE. We are prac-
ticitlly ciilnated from foreign
| H..
We carry only about s per
cent. &c our own foreign trade in our
own vessels. This is caused 10y the
fact that it costs from 25 to - per cent.
more to build an American ship in am
American yard, and from .5 to 81 per
cent more to operate an American ship
under the American nag, than it does
To- ll,i!l in foreign yards. and optrat
under foreign flags. This excess Of
cost is due almoSl wholly to the great |
er wages paid in The yards to American
Workmcn and ON American vessels t.
American sailors. The inequality could |
De corrected by cutting down the rate
of wage; in each instance. The policy |
of the Republican party, however, is |
To maintain the American standard of |
wages 50 that The American wage
GARNER receives more, 4 much higher |
rate of wage than i'll any other country |
The wages of the men engaged i'll the |
shipping industry are no higher rtla- |
lively than that of men engaged in |
other industries in the country. IN or |
der to maintain this industry, and at |
the same time maintain American rate |
of wage to which the Republican par |
ty stands pledged. government aid to |
inc lutuS3TN Ill llllllSltfiSlDit. i 1aNtf |
this legislation. Does Mr.. McGillicuddy |
favor il or oppose it? His ally, Mr. |
GomperS. opposes il.
In an interview i'm the Lewiston Sun,
prior 10 Mr.. Mc,iillicuddy'S first speech |
in oxford County, in this campaign, | |
suggested that he might with propric-
~ stat" what his position was in rela-
ton 10 these measures. That lie. Gil |
not do. | repea; this suggestion Does
lie favor them, or VIII he oppose them"
VIII he stand with his ally. or will he
stand against him. My attiud" upcn
these two measures is not. however,
tho head ANA front Of my offending.
Mr.. GOmper$ has been energrticalIy |
urging upon Congress the enactment of |
certain Legislation which legislation
without amendment have not been All,
{" approve. 1t is known as the Anti
Injunction Bill. This bill contains two
distinct propositions: First, 1t provides
III substance that no agreement COM
blnation, or cantra"t nv or between
Two on mere persons, to 10 or procure
To be- done, or not 10 do or procure. To he |
done, any act in contemplation of fur
therance of any trade dispute. between
employers and employees, shall b- deem
'u ffiHlfiJl, nor SndlI those engaged
thereil be indictahlc. or otherwise. pun
ishabla. for the crime of conspiracy. il
the act when committed by one per
son. would not be punishable as a crime
and provides that no restraining: ord,
Or injunction, shall be issued with re-
lat0n thereto.
As | have already minated I can
not take time thi" afternoon to eIabor-
ate any of these propositions. but one
Illustration will show the significance
of this proposed Legislation. 1t is not
punishable as n crime to threaten to |
commit a crime. A man may threat eii
bodily harm, or threaten to murder,
but until the act is done he is not pun
iSEah" aS having committed a crime
The only remedy under our statute is
to proceed {" place the person making
such a threat under bond to keep the
peace. This act, then would author
ne an agreement or combination, or a
conspiracy, t. threaten to commit muir
der. and such a combination or con-
Spiracy would not only b. made lawful