The Montgomery tribune. (Montgomery City, Mo.) 1892-1910, 1906-03-09
GROWING NEED OF SHIPS.
3ood Reasons for the Passage of the
Bill Favoring Sub
sidy.

Now that the ship subsidy bill has
passed the United States senate and
has gone to the house of representa-
lives, naturally the opponents of any
plan to encourage the revival of our
ocean-going mercantile marine have
increased their efforts to prevent the
Measure from getting through and
some of the arguments employed
would seem to indicate that those who
use them are in a somewhat hysterical
condition. 1t is strange what antipa-
thy can be shown, by persons profess
eddy DESTROYS Of furthering their coun-
try's interest, to methods known to be
practicable and successful elsewhere,
but which happen to be contrary to
their preconceived economic notions,
The fiercest denunciation of the sub
sidy system comes from American
free traders; yet 1T is notorious and in
disputable that Great Britain, which
has the closest approach to free trade
that can be found anywhere, Is most
liberal In her subventions to shipping,
because she Is we'll aware that the
maintenance of her marine is essential
to the preservation of her commercial
Importance, says the Troy Times.
Here is the line of reasoning which
some of these American free traders
are using: We cannot increase our
foreign trade by paying American
ships for carrying goods to and from
our ports to those Of other countries.
The only way in which it can be lone
Is to increase the production Of those
things which we can sell to advantage
to other countries and diminish the
cost of them so as to reach the widest
demand; and, on the ether hand,et to
buy from other countries wherever we
can do so to advantage at the lowest
practicable cost to ourselves" That
sounds very plausible, but in practice
1t Will not work-at least not without
leaving us at the mercy of foreign
competitors In many lines of industry
which we have laboriously built up.
h plan proposed means simply re-
ducing our tariff to a purely revenue
basis and letting in the products of
other countries without check; in fact.
complete abandonment of protection in
my form.
Well, this country has had some ex-
perience with that sort of thing. 1t be-
gan as far back as when the colonies
were under the rule of the old world
and were compelled to buy from other
countries wherever we could do So"
The governments which controlled the
colonies took good care that the colo
nies should produce nothing which
would compete with the industries
across h ocean,, and should buy in
England most of the articles needed.
On the other hand, the colonies were
g~raciously permitted to ship their to.
bacco, grain and other crude products,
at prices fixed in Europe, in exchange
for the manufactures required on this
side of the ocean. 1t was an ideal ar
rangement from the free trade point
Of view, but 1t did not tend to any
very great development Of American
industry. Likewise at various times
since independence the United States
has had low or revenue tariffs, and in
no instance has the increase in home
manufacturing or the expansion Of for
sign trade been such as to establish
he superiority Of that method.
In brief, neither the foreign nor the
domestic commerce of the United
States ever prospered under low tar
IFS as they have done under protection,
as a reference to the figures will prove.
But 1t Is an inconsistency not to be
patiently contemplated by truly pro-
gressive and patriotic Americans that
the enormous and steadily increasing
business of carrying goods to and from
foreign lands should be left almost
exclusively to alien hands. No other
commercial nation of Importance toll
crates such a condition of things.
There is no sound reason why the
United States should continue to oc.
cupy this humiliating position. The
notions of fanciful. economic theoriz-
srs should give way to the require
ments Of plain, everyday common