The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-11-21

1 rage over her railroads for merchan. dlse shipped by those lines. Spain Norway Austria Hungary, Canada al
 supsioise their own lines It is esti-
 mated that about $2s.O0o.ooo year are paid by our commercial competItors to their steamship lines.
 Against these advantages to his
 comp etitor the American ship owner
 mas mas to contend: and 1t is manifest that tne subsidized ship can afford to carry freight at cost for a long enough pe-
 riod to drive him out of business Competition fm Subsidized.
 K We are living in a world not of natural competition. but of subsidized competition. State aid to steamship
 nnes nia IS as much part of the commer- eial system of our day as state em-
 pioyment of consuls to promote busi-
 Tt will be observed that both of : tnese dfsadvantaRes under which the American ship owner labors are artI- ncial; they are created by govern mental action, one by our own govern
 nneni Tn raising the standard of wages ana living, Dy the protective tariff, the other by foreign governments in pay ing subsidies to their ships for the promotion of their own trade For the American ship owner 1t is not a contest of intelligence skill. industry
 and thrift against similar qualities in ms competitors and his competitors
 governments and his own government
 Plainly these disadvantages created
 by governmental action can be neu-
 traiized only by governmental action, ana should be neutralized by such &C., tion What action ought our govern ment to take for the accomplishment Of this just purpose?
 "First-A law providing for free ships, that is, permitting Americans to buy ships in other countries and bring them under the American flag. Plain ly this would not at all meet the difn- culties which I have described. The | only thing it would accomplish would be to overcome the excess in cost of building ship in an American ship yard over the cost of building 1t in a
 foreign shipyard but since all the ma teriais which enter into an American ship are entirely relieved of duty, the difference in cost or construction is so slight as to be practically a negligible
 quantity and to afford no substantial
 obstacle to the revival of American
 shipping. The expedient of free ships,
 therefore. would be merely to sacrifice which ought to be revived and ens
 larged with American shipping, and to sacrifice 1t without receiving any sub
 stantial benefit. It is to be observed
 that Germany, France and Italy all have attempted to build up their own
 shipping by adopting the policy of free
 have abandoned 1t, and have adopted in | it's place the policy of subsidy.
 ''Second-lt has been proposed to es-
 tablish a discriminating tariff duty th
 
 ships, that is to say, to impose higher duties upon goods imported in foreign ships than are imposed on goods im- ported in American ships We tried | that once many years ago and have
 abandoned it. In its place we have en- tered into treaties of commerce and
 navigation with the principal countries
 of the world expressly agreeing that
 no such discrimination shall be made | between their vessels and ours. To | sweep away all those treaties and en-
 ter upon a war of commercial retalia- ton and reprisaI for the sake of ac-
 complaining indirectly what can be
 done directly should not be seriously | considered.
 shipping Should be Subsidized. | "Third-There remains the third and | obvious method; to neutralize the arti- | hcial disadvantages imposed upon American shipping through the action of our own government and foreign | governments by an equivalent adVan- l tage in the form of a subsidy or sub | vention. In my opinion this is what | should be done; 1t is the sensible and fair thing to do. It is what must be | done if we would have a revival of our shipping and the desired development | of our foreign trade. We cannot re- peal the protective tariff; no political party dreams of repeating it; we do not
 wish to lower the standard of Ameri-
 can living or American wages. We