, 1922-05-02
The Nation Interested

"a WRITER IN THE New York Herald opposing a
n ship subsidy asks the question @Why should /, in
my business, be asked to contribute to another bust
ness with which / have nothing to do and which cannot
benefit me?" The writer means of course, that there
could be but one answer to his query-he should not
be asked to make such contribution. That rcply would
be the natural one if the premises of the question
were correct-that a man not in the shipping business
has nothing to do with the merchant marine, nor is
1t of any benefit to him. The opposite, however, is
the truth and that is the reason the Harding admins
tration favors and we hope the Republican congress
is going to pass a subsidy bin that viii keep the Amer
lean flag on the seas. It is not the Republican uartvss
policy to legisate for any privileged class, and the
subsidy bin is not designed for the special favor of
ship owners and operators, but II is intended for the
welfare of the nation.
Every citizen of this country has rs great and as
direct an interest in the maintenance Of an American
merchant marine as has any other element that CON
tributes to national safety and prosperity. Our tax
payers contribute some $500, 200, 900 a year for the
support of a navy. and almost as much more for the
upkeep of an army. The merchant marine subsidy
calls for a maximum payment of about $50, 000, 900
annually, and yet ships. of commerce in time of war.
whether overseas OF nearer home, are as vital TO sue
cess as the navy OF army. In the World war more
than half of our men and supplies were transported
in British vessels, and even in the Spanish-American
war we were forced to purchase merchant ships from
Great Britain. In both instances we were compelled
to depend on foreign sources for the essentials of
warfare. In the matter of preparedness alone. the
country win derive many times the value of the sub
sidy that insures us a merchant fleet available in the
time of need.
1.-THE flag that carries our commerce the cheapest
is the one that win get the business" is the idea of
the writer in question The inference being that
America should make no effort to meet foreign COM
petition in the matter Of ocean freight rates. Pre-
cisely the same argument could be applied to every
other industry in which our citizens are engaged.
Scarcely a product that is manufactured abroad but
can be imported into the United States and sold at n
price that will soon put American producers out of
business. If it is sound economics to permit foreigners
to do our ocean carrying business for us. it is equally
SOUND to let them monopolize our commercial markets
end sell US everything we need. But we would then
be a dependent nation, absolutely at the mercy of
alien profiteers.
The Republican policy is opposed to any such sur
render. American production is to be protected and
American standards of living are to be maintained
through a tariff that will compensate for the differ
ence in the cost of production at home and abroad.
By precisely the Sane economic reasoning the differ
ence in the cost of operating a merchant marine at
home and abroad is to be met through a subsidy from
the federal treasury. Then American operators can
make sufficient profit to warrant them in keeping
their capital in ships, and the American exporter will
always be assured of a vessel in which TO transport
his goods, free from the whims of foreign owners.
The value of that independence in ocean shipping is
impossible to estimate, and depends on the effect of
future international relations on the supply of ships,
but in any case it is cheap at the price we are to pay.