The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

TAE Marine REVIEW : 25 and continued with several amendments, all under democratic administrations, until 1866. The minority in lieu of this provision last year recommended a return to the old policy of discriminating duties, so abridged, however, as to rob it of all its possible benefits. It proposed to make no dis- crimination in respect to our non-dutiable imports, which constitute about 45 per cent in value and 65 per cent in bulk of all our imports. In respect to dutiable imports, if brought to us in the ships of the country of their growth, production and manufacture, they were to enjoy the same reduction in duty that was proposed for American vessels. As most of our dutiable imports come from countries having a-merchant marine of their own, naturally they would be sent here in their own ships, and American ships would gain no advantage there; and while the opportunities are much greater for American ships in the trade of those countries from which our non-dutiable imports come, be- cause those countries have little or no shipping of their own, in respect to such imports no discrimination was proposed. If a duty were placed upon such non-dutiable imports, when brought in foreign vessels, it would soon divert such imports to American vessels, but the minority stated it would not consent to that. The minority report submitted to the senate on the pend- ing bill recommends no alternative policy whatever, thus being radically different from that submitted a year ago. On the other hand, Senator Mallory, who is credited with the preparation of the senate commerce committee's min- ority report made an elaborate speech in the senate advocat- ing a complete readoption of the old discriminating import duties and tonnage dues policy, without abridgement. But there is nothing to indicate that he is supported in that posi- tion by his colleagues on the democratic side except in the case of Senator Patterson, who advocated a reduction in duty on dutiable imports, but: who proposed no change in respect to non-dutiable imports. SENATOR MALLORY'S SPEECH. In his speech against the bill Senator Mallory several times assert that its provisions, as to subsidies for mail lines, and as to bounties for cargo 'carriers, are insufficient to attract American capital into them for the foreign trade. These statements coming from a strong opponent of the bill are deserving of reproduction. As to the provision for cargo vessels he says: "In the first place the amount which is donated is too small . . . Five dollars a ton in my judgment | and I know it can be demonstrated . . . for twelve months service in running a ship of any size is en- tirely too small an amount to meet the disparity which exists between the operating expenses and the original cost of vessels in the United States and vessels under foreign flags. I do not believe Mr. President, that $10 would be sufficient to meet that disparity and put the American ship on an equality with the foreign ship." .. . As to the provision for mail-carrying steamships, he says: "But the senator (Mr. Gallinger, of New Hampshire) called my attention to the postal subsidy. I do not find any fault with the postal subsidy. I think it is one of the best features of this bill. The senator knows that I acquiesced readily as a member of the commission. The only fault I ever found with that is that I do not think we give postal subsidy enough. I would vote readily to increase the subsi- dies that are provided for from the Gulf of Mexico, be- cause I doubt very much whether you will establish the lines that are sought to be established to Brazil and Argen- tine on the small subsidy that is given." . =: - Senator Gallinger, on the other hand published statements from ship owners of unquestioned reliability, saying that, while the subsidies and bounties might not quite suffice to make up the difference, they would yet suffice to induce 'is restored by the house, as we hope it will be. The second -alarmed at the prospect of the passage by our congress of g them to build vessels for the foreign trade, in the hope through rigid economy in operation, to take out a profit event- ually. . Ce The United States now saves $2,500,000 on its ocean mail carriage each year. It is the only great nation that makes such a saving. Great Britain loses about $2,500,000 annually over what she receives in ocean postage She pays that much more for ocean mail transportation than she re- ceives from ocean postage. But Great Britain possesses the ships and we do not. We save on ocean postage, but we are _ without ocean ships. , HOW THE BILL WOULD OPERATE, us The first year's operation of the bill will cost the govern- ment nothing, if the item of increased tonnage dues, om- mitted from the bill in the senate because revenue-produc- ing Measures cannot constitutionally originate in the senate, year the cost would be less than two millions. The tenth year it would work up to between seven and eight millions, averaging slightly in excess of four million annually for ten years. 'Deduct from this at least $25,000,000 excess of ocean postage over expense of ocean mail carriage, and add to it the revenue from increased tonnage dues, and 'it will be seen that the cost of a trial of the bill will be compara- tively unimportant. This presents to the republican club of the city of New York the present status of American shipping in the foreign trade and a fair summary of the bill as drafted by a painstaking, honest, well-informed body of national legis- lators, appointed pursuant to President Roosevelt's recom- mendation to devise a method by which to build up our ship- ping in the foreign trade. The argument advanced by some opponents of subsidies _ that it is taxing the whole people for the benefit of a class is not well founded. The whole country is taxed for our mail subsidies on land, for the improvement of rivers and habors, and for public buildings which are used only by a small part of our population, and yet in broad sense they are for the general good. No one questions the patriotism of the citizens of any section of our great country, but when we get a business question into the tides and currents and whirlpools of parti- san politics it is often sucked down to destruction. Congress will vote unanimously eighty or ninety millions a year for a navy, but when it comes to voting five millions a year for a commercial navy, which would be nearly self-sustain- ing in the time of peace, and be a militia of the seas in time of "war, some of our representatives hesitate. Ten per cent of the expense of maintaining our navy expended on building up our commercial marine would double the effi- ciency of our navy. A commercial marine would be a nursery for seamen and mechanics necessary in the navy. We are willing to vote unanimously a hundred or two hundred millions for an Isthmian canal for the merchant marine of other countries to use but hesitate to vote a small part of that sum to build up an American merchant marine to use it. | CHEAP TRANSPORTATION IS A NECESSITY. In order to find a market at remunerative prices for the surplus products of our fields, forests, mines and factories, we must have cheap transportation. We have got it on the land, and should have it on the sea. It is the one missing link in the chain of facilities which will enable us to conquer the commercial world. British ship owners were greatly the Hanna-Payne subsidy bill, and estimated that its effect would be to reduce ocean freights within a few years 25 per cent. We pay over $200,000,000 a year in ocean freights, principally on our agricultural products. Twenty-five per cent of this is $50,000,000. Would it not be good