Forest City press. (Forest City, Potter County, D.T. [S.D.]) 1883-19??, 1915-06-16

by JOnn nom IN century MdSdZilit.
All earlier suggestions have involved
the payment of a subsidy in some form.
There can be no quarrel with those who.
believing in the economic soundness OF a
protective. or, more properly speaking. "A
prohibitive tariff. advocate government
subsidy for ships. a ship subsidy is
merely protection without disguise rms
fact accounts in large measure for the
persistent opposition every subsidy meas
ure has met with at the hands of the great
producing regions of the west and south.
1t is customary for those whose mission
upon earth is to preach protection In sea-
son and OUT of season to point TO its re
suits as sufficiently beneficial to Justify
the system. For so years We have lived
under a protective tariff. during which
time our manufacturing industries have
made prodieious progress: therefore, If
We had not had u protective tariff, we
should now saVe no manufacturing m
dustries. We know that the protective
tatiff has been instrumental in the devel-
opinent of our industrial system, but,
waving the question as to whether or not
us rapid development-to the neglect of
our agricultural resources and our oppor-
tunltleS on the seas. and resulting in the
'nfiuN ana congestion at manufacturing
rettefs OF II large foreign population-has
oeen an unmiNed good. we also know that
i we had not had Il protective tariff we
should not on that account have become a
nation of peasants and shepherds. And
so with regard To shipping. these apostles
of protection argue that since England,
esance. Germany. and Japan pay subsidies
10 Their Shipowners and have fleets en-
gagged IN foreign trade much larger than
our own. We should follow their m
and that in no other Way can successful
competition with them on the high seas he
instituted Or maintained.
| As 10 what constitutes a SuhSidv there,
seems to Ne no agreement between those
who advocate and those who oppose it.
IN View of the difficulty of differentiat-
Ing between subsidies that aim solely at
the announcement OF shipping and those
paid for services supposedly worth the
price II is necessary for the purposes of
comparison 10 use the term subsidy as in
Guiding SuhNentions, mail contracts and
all forms of bounties combined. The an
nual payments of the leading maritime
nations are fully set forth in II special
report of the British board of trade, June.
1913. With the aid of this report it is pos
slble to arrive at a general conclusion as
TO what. II any. influence the payment
of subsidies has had in the development
of shipping throughout the world.
Excepting only the case Of Japan,
It Is not possible to point to a single
instance In which the payment Of
subsidies has ever seemingly created
a merchant marine.
Japan pays liberal subsidies, her an
hual disbursements for postal and other
service being in the neighborhood of ST.
OOO. 900. The Japanese steam fleet has
grown from 900, 600 tons in 1905 to
10000 600 tons in 1913. This growth has
been in line with the tremendous eco
nomic progress of the nation since it sud-
denly became a world power. but that it
has been greatly stimulated by the pay
ment of subsidies may be gathered from
the fact that it has been entirely diff
ferent from the growth of the fleets of
England, Holland, Norway and Sweden.
There is virtually no such thing as a
tramp steamer under the Japanese flag.
The subsidy system of Japan has Gre
ated and supported against domestic
competition four large companies which
operate steamers over beaten lanes in
competition with nonsubsidized British
and German steamers.
These lines have opened up no new
avenues Of trade, nor as a rule do
they serve the Japanese shipper at
lower freight rates than those offered
by the ships Of other nations. Not
wlthstanding the iiberaIity Of the
Japanese taxpayers and the fact that
wages In Japan are absurdly low,
measured by European standards, the
Japanese ship owner or manager
makes only a slightly better showing
than his nonsubsldixed British COM
petitor. The four lines that between
them control about one.haif Of the
entire steam tonnage and almost the
whole oversee tonnage OF the nation,
and absorb nearly $4,000, 600 Of the
100000 annually expended In sub.
stdles, returned to their stockholders
In 1913 about one-haif OF the sum
received for subsidies.
The most liberal of all nations in the
payment OF subsidies is France, which
Toes not confine her bounties to steam
ships. but extends them to sailing vessels
and ~shipbuilding plants as well. The first
French law for the encouragement Of the
merchant marine was passed In 1881.
Under this law there wal paid for CON
struction and navigation bounties. be-
tween its passage and 1893, 1924. 900. 900.
or an average of SO. 900. 900 a year. The
results were considered unsatisfactory.
and the new law Of 1893 increased the
construction bounties for steamships, in
creased them for sailing vessels and abol-
ished them for vessels built abroad. This
law was superseded by the statute of
1902, and this again by that Of 1906. which
is still In force. n under which annual
payments in the form of construction
~bounties. navigation bounties and postal
subventions nave amounted to about s12.-
O0O. 900. over half OF which was for the
How u. 8. Aided Cuba.