The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1914-04-03

establish our merchant marine. This
has been policy of the democratic
party since the beginning of the gov
eminent The democratic party has
never stood for direct subsidies, but
has always favored subventions and
ping.
1t was through discriminating tariff
duties that our merchant marine was
developed in the first three decades
of our governments existence. The
democratic tariff law that is now on
the statute books carries in it dis
elimination amounting to reduction
of five per cent of the duties on goods
imported in American ships.
IF We have built the canal for the
benefit of an American merchant ma
rine and not for the practical, exclu-
sive use of foreign shipping, We must
adopt a policy of discrimination in IA
vor of American ships, or we must in
the end pay direct subsidies to enable
our ships to compete with ships OF
foreign nations. The subsidies and
determinations that European gov
ernments have given to their shipping
interests have practically driven
American ships from the seas.
+ For the reasons given | believe
that the democratic parity was both
wise and patriotic when it announced
a policy of discriminating in favor of
our coastwise ships going through
j the Panama canal, and that there is
TO reason at this time why we should
abandon a solemn promise made to
the American people in one of the
most prominent planks in our party
platform.
| ing a solemn treaty made with anoth-
J err nation and in good faith that we
should abandon the canal to foreign
rivals without contest or dispute, in
order that We may keep our standing
in the family of nations.
J Not for one moment do l believe
that we have violated a treaty right
and not for one moment do | believe
that the English government serious
: ly contends that we have violated
treaty right. Our whole difficulty in
the matter arises from the un-Ameri-
can spirit of surrender that some of
our own people have exhibited toward
this important question from the very
beginning.
| IF the congress had unanimously
passed the canal tolls bill two years
ago, | do not believe that the ques-
ton would ever have been raised that
we do not have the right to exempt
American ships from the payment OF
tolls when we charge foreign ships a
| fair and equitable rate for their pass
age through the canal. Great Brit
ain charges $3.50 for the passing
through a canal that cost only one
third of what it cost us to build the
are only $1.30 per net ton.
st seems to me clear that it does
not lie within the mouth of Great Brit
ain or any other foreign nation to
complain that we have not given them
fair and equitable treatment in the
| tolls that we have charged for the
passage of their ships through the
canal
There is a more serious question
involved in the passage OF this bill.
The right to discriminate in favor of
our ships, the opportunity to encour-
age our shipping and to increase our
! commerce are matters of vital i'm
portance, but they pale into insignifi-
| canoe when compared with the attack
on the sovereignty of our country in
the Canal Zone.
1.-The power to build the canal, I'M
der our constitution rests in the war
power of the United States. We built
the canal primarily as an addition to
OuE wal pOWCls a. 1T pei Illlo bAC
quicker transfer of our naval forces
from one ocean to another. It's in
land lake provides harbor of refuge
in which our navies can rendezvous,
and, as occasion offers, strike either
, ocean.
THE advocates of Great Britain
take the position that we are forbid
den to discriminate in favor of our
own vessels of commerce, and as YES
sells of commerce and war are named
together, how long will it be before
the same advocate of the British con-
tention will advise us that we cannot
discriminate in favor of our own war
vessels?
1.-The contention of those advocat-
ing the British claim seems almost