The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1910-03-24
TO SUBSIDIZE OR
NOT TO sUBSIDZE? ?

Ion by the Biqua talI Ine
editor writes Mcidly, and coming
from tide water he probably writes
with more than ordinary knowledge
Of shipping affairs. We can agree
with most of his statements and
lut take exception TO one
which, IL true, might lay
n logical basis for a ship subsidy. The
objection to a subsidy Is that it would
take the peoples money to promote
and money grabbing by
and Hill and Rockefeller
syndicates that II would pay more
for the carrying of the mails than
the service is worth and that it would
not result in any particular benefit
to American trade, for trade is purely
or, at least, largely, q matter of fl
nance and not one of sentiment.
The paragraph to which we should
file an objection is as follows:
at would enlarge our markets,
increase our sales abroad, and hasten
immeasurably the development of our
resources In foreign commerce we are
at the mercy of nations who are our
direct competitors, because, having no
vessels to carry our wares abroad, we
must pay our competitors whatever
they may see fit to charge us for ocean
carriage, and thus we are cut off from
markets in which we would find large
sales"
How would American ships carry
ing our merchandise "enlarge our
markets" and increase orr sales
abroad?" Will the British furnish
more emporiums of trade and larger
number of purchasers for our flour
and beef because they are carried un-
der the Stars and Stripes than they
would If carried under the British
flag? Do the Dutch Beers of South
Africa care continental whether the
ships which bring them American
shovels and plows and moving ma
chimes are carried under an American
flag or some other? Are the Sang
users of China particular about the
nationality of ships which carry the
panacea for all Celestial ills, and If
we put on more ships will they buy
more "sang?"
The proposition Is almost absurd
Then how will this measure "haster
immeasurably the development o
our resources?" To tax ourselves tC
build ships which are navigated al
an admitted expense which will not
cause anybody to buy a pound more
of our flour and beef and pork and
cotton than they need-not n pound
more than they would IL carried by
the ships of their own countries
would be uneconomic, eXtravagant
and foolish, especially when our gov
ernments finances are falling behind
yeary, to the amount of 70 or s,
millions and hence 1t is perfectly clea
that such folly and extravaganza
would in no way tend to develop ou
resources, but would be an obstruc
ton to such development. The wa,
to most effectively do this would b
to give our people an honest, economi
cal and wise administration of tn
government and leave this $4,000, OC
which 1t is proposed to squander an
nually on rotten subsidy propositio
l-the money ultimately getting int
the clutches of the Millionaire pro
moters-in the peoples pockets
whom II belongs. And If the gov
Iernment had n surplus and money
would put none of It into such a
absurd enterprise as a subsidy, bl
reclamation service and thus ad
millions of acres to the tillable LAND
X of the public domain. That wouI
beat an extravagant subsidy notion
mile in "hastening the developmer
of our resources"
Again we take issue with the propc
/, sition that we are in any financial {
economic sense ''at the mercy of nj
tions who are our direct competitors
or that we must pay them more tina
others pay them for similar service, ,
that 1--WE are cut off from marke
. In which we would find large sales
These statements are interesting bv
they seem to have one serious defec
They are, in our judgment, not tru
We mean this to be taken as the gel
eral proposition. OF course It will
n admitted that in small, occahion
e way American merchant vessels mig
;, increase the demand for our cor
modities, but that we are cut off fro
and considerable markets in whi
z. we would find large sales" by reas
l. of not having our flag flying from L