Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1910-03-05
grades of the former under mueh
| higher impost than the latter
! Does Not Help Protection.

grades OF lile q
higher impost than the latter.
Does Not Help Protection.
THE labored efforts of the repub-
Iican apologists, including the presl-
dent himself, to show that the new re-
publican tariff law is step toward
lower tariffs are doing more TO under
mine the archaic dogma OF protection
than all other agencies combined.
THE American people can not sus-
tain much longer on the yearly burden
of an average ad va1orem of nearly oO
per cent on nearly all the S15,0O0,OOO'
900 worth Of goods manufactured IN
the United States They are begin
ming to see that out of every dollar or
the greater part of this $4,000, 600
which they expend every year for ar
ticles of necessity and comfort they
receive only about so cents in actual
value"
The Ship Subsidy.
THE greatest objection to ship
subsidy is that when you make di-
rect appropriation from the taxes
gathered from the people to build up
special interests, there is no defining
where the line will ultimately be
drawn; for if we can tax the people TO
substitute one mans business, we can
tax them to pay tribute to another"
In these words Representative Oscar
". Underwood of Alabama, one OF the
leaders of the democratic side of the
house, presented the position of the
minority on the Taft-Humphrey ship
1 Co. an
nual subsidy of approximately $1,000
600 Mr.. Underwood advocated a per
cent discriminatory duty in favor Of
merchandise carried in American ships
as the best method Of solving the
problem of the declining American
merchant marine, explaining that one
of the advantages of this method was
that it would not mean increased tax
alton of the masses for the benefit of
special interests.
Would Not He Burden.
"a reduction Of the tariff of 3 per
cent on all goods imported into the
United States in American ships" said
Mr.. Underwood, would give the Amer
lean ship owner an advantage over the
foreign ship owner in payment of du-
ties of from 100000 to $15,000,00O
annually. This would not fall as a
burden on anyone; it, OF course, would
enable the American ship owner to
charge nearly the amount of the dis
eliminating duty as additional freight
rates, but it would not increase the
cost of goods imported in this country
a dollar over what they are today. 1t
would not take a dollar cut of the fed
eral treasury, and, in my judgment, it
is the only effective remedy that can
be adopted toward building up the
merchant marine OF our country, and
keep the profits that are derived from
the transportation OF our foreign COM
MERGE at home instead of paying 1t to
foreign nations.
The only objection that 1 have
heard urged to this policy has been
that it would be in violation OF our for
eign treaties, and that we could not
afford to endanger our trade relations
with foreign countries.
No Treaties In Why.
But there are no treaties that stand
in our way TO prevent US from enacting
a discriminating tariff duty in favor of
American ships. 1t was the policy OF
our fathers; it built up our merchant
marine from a point where it was car
rying II per cent of our commerce to
a point where it was carrying 80 per
cent of American commerce in a period
of seven years. 1t does not place ad-
ditional burdens upon the people; it is
not a policy of doubtful constitution
atty; it is a policy that has been tried
and proven effective.
1T is a policy by which we can re-
store the American flag to the seas
and the American ships to our COM
mercial trade. 1t is a policy that will
enable us to build up the export trade
of the American people. 1t is a policy
that viii enable us to find foreign mar
kets for our surplus products in agri-
culture and manufacture.
ut is a policy that will ultimately
overcome the necessity of our paying
a foreign balance in gold to European
nations and will bring prosperity to all
lines of industry" applause On demo-
cratic side.)