Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1914-03-28

d
establish our merchant marine. Iris
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
determinations in favor of our ship
ping.
1T was through discriminating tar
if duties that our merchant marine
was developed in the first three de.
cades OF our governments existence.
The Democratic tariff law that is now
on the statute books carries in it
discrimination amounting to a reduc.
ton 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 mar
inc and not for the practical exclu-
sive use of foreign shipping, we must
adopt a policy OF discrimination in
favor of American ships, or We must
In the end pay indirect subsidies to
enable our ships to compete with
ships Of foreign nations. The subsidies
and determinations that Europe gov
ernments have given to their ship:
ping interests have practically driven
American ships from the seas. ~.
For the reasons given | believe
that the Democratic party was both
wise and patriotic when it announced
Il policy in favor of discriminating in
favor Of cOastwise ships going through
the Panama Canal and that there Is
no 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. H..
."Eut we are told that we are VIC
!ating q solemn treaty made with
another nation and in good faith that
we should abandon the canal to for.
eign rivals without contest or dispute
in order that we may keep our stand.
ing in tine family Of nations.
"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
" contends that We have violated q
treaty right. Our whole difficulty In
the matter arises from the un-Amor,
lean spirit of surrender that some OF
our own people have exhibited to
ward 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 question
would ever have been raised that We
do not have the right to exempt Amer
lean ships from the payment of tolls
when we charge foreign ships i fail
and equitable rate for their passage
through the canal. Great Britain
charges $3.50 for the passage through
canal that cost only one.third Of
what it cost us to build the Panams
Canal and our tolls charge ia only
$40 net per ton.
ut seems to ME clear that it does
not lie within the mouth OF Grea,
Britain or any foreign nation to com
plain that we have not given then
fair and equitable treatment in the
tolls that We have charged for thu
passage OF their ships through thu
canal. .,g-,-, ~
There is more serious question
involved in the passage. OF, this bill
The right to discriminate in favor, o.
our ships, the opportunity to enc0ur
age our shipping and to Increase oul
commerce are matters OF vital impor
lance, but they pale into insignifi
cence when compared with the attacl
ON the sovereignty of our country; /,
the Canal Zone.
"The power to build the Canal. un
der our Constitution rests in tue wa
power OF the United States. We bull
the Canal primarily, as an addition Il
our war power as It permits the
quicker transfer OF our naval forces
from one ocean to another. Its inlan(
lake provides harbor of refuge IL
which our navies can rendezvous, an(
as occasion offers, strike Fighter
ocean. @a
THE advocates of Great Britain
take the position that we are forbid
den to discriminate In favor of o,ll
own vessels OF commerce, and as yes
sells OF commerce and war and named
together, how long will 1t be before
the same advocates OF the British
Contention will advise us that We
cannot discriminate in favor of ou,
own war vessels. F
THE contention of those adyOcat
ing the British claim seems almost
absurd when we recognize that if we
admit them for vessels of commerce
the same reasoning will require us
to admit them for vessels of war. To
do so would convert the Canal in time
OF war into liability instead of an
asset. OF course we made no such
contract. We give to all nations oh.
serving certain rules adopted by us
certain privileges in the Canal. That
did not mean that we proposed to
build a Canal at our own expense and
then surrender it's sovereignty to all
other nations. .
There is no word in the treaties
that even by implication denies our
right to give free tolls to our vessels
in any trade, and the day will yet
come when we will free our vessels
frOyn to11c In Tho eo,o3x. A.oI. r..A