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

418 had driven the American flag from the sea. At that time I used this lan- guage: "A free ship policy in this country would not be of any effect. "Tf the American owner cannot run at a profit the vessel he already owns, certainly the most stupid would not contend that he would buy and run another, however low the purchase price might be." But, notwithstanding these facts, so plain that none could be deceived, the Democratic party continued to insist that the only remedy was free ships, and they used this argument on every occasion to defeat any bill that would have been of real assistance. Finally a bill was reported from the commit- tee on merchant marine and fisheries, of which I was a member, having a free-ship section. Much to the sur- prise of many of my Democratic and Republican friends, I favored this pro- vision and declared on the floor of the House that I favored it, because if we adopted it it would demonstrate its utter worthlessness and would put an end to this free-ship propaganda. A free-ship provision was finally enacted into law in the Panama Canal Act. It -has been upon the statute books for more than two years. My prediction bas proven correct. Not a single ship has taken the American flag as the result of that legislation. The falsity of the free-ship argument has been fully demonstrated, so much so that even the Democratic party no longer uses it. 5 But even this has not been sufficient to divorce the Democratic party from its policy of delusion and folly of "setting something for nothing'. It still advocates the policy of free trade on the seas. They call this policy a "discriminating duty". It was pro- posed to reduce the duty on goods carried in American ships 5 per cent. Of all the absurd, pathetically ridicu- lous propositions ever seriously urged in Congress as an efficient remedy to build up an American merchant ma- rine, this proposition stands first. Absurdity of Free Ships But as with free ships, it was no use to present facts and figures. So this absurdity was written into the Underwood tariff. bill. The history ot American legislation furnishes no example of a more indefensible act of Congress. In the first place, we had but few American ships, so the result would have been practically negligible in any event, as the amount was not sufficient to cause an addi- tional American ship to be run or to cause one already running to make an additional voyage. -What little in- fluence it would have would be to THE MARINE REVIEW open our markets to foreign goods and not foreign markets to our goods. If such provision would have any in- fluence whatever it would be to in- crease imports and decrease exports. In other words, it was a free trade proposition. What _ little help it would give was a mere gratuity, a pure subsidy, that went either to vessels already receiving a _ subsidy from the government or to ves- sels operated by cheap Chinese crews. To secure this subsidy these favored vessels were not required to perform any service for the govern- ment or to give any additional serv- ices whatever for the benefit of Amer- ican commerce. -- Greatly in Need of Ships Of course, between here and South America and between here and_ the Orient is where we are most greatly in need of American ships. But this free trade provision of the Under- wood bill in the trade with these countries would not. give sufficient amount to put a "painted ship upon a painted ocean'. A large part of our imports from South America and from the Orient is upon the free list. Tak- ing the actual figures from the cus- tomhouses, a reduction of 5 per cent of the duty would give the great ves- sels of the Pacific Mail not more than $5,000 for each round trip, while the vessels of its Japanese competitor, 'making exactly the same voyage, re- ceive $100,000 in gold from the Japan- ese government for each round trip. I showed from the reports of the collector of customs from the Puget Sound district that..this 5 per cent provision, if the vessel got. it. all, would give the giant Minnesota, the greatest vessel on all the Pacific ocean, for each round trip of more than 12,000 miles, less than $2,000, hardly sufficient to pay the salary of the cook, although if this great ves- sel was subsidized in the same amount as her Japanese competitors she would receive about $150,000 each round trip. The. figures from the treasury de- partment show that this reduction of 5 per cent, as proposed by the Un- derwood bill, if the vessels received the entire 5 per cent, would not be sufficient, as I stated when discussing the proposition here on the floor of the Houwse,.to run a line of Indian canoes between here and South America. Under the provision of the Under- wood law, a tramp vessel coming from Europe to this country would receive greater compensation for car- rying a single case of champagne than a modern ocean liner would re- ceive for bringing $5,000,000 worth November, 1914 of rubber, or hides, or coffee, or meat from the distant coast of South Amer- ica. No words can demonstrate the utter absurdity of this provision of the present tariff law as do the gov- ernment official figures that I have placed in the Record. But nothing could convince the Democrats that they could not "get something -for nothing". They had to try this provision as they had to try free ships before they were. sat- isfied. But even now I understand that. some of the worshippers of free trade are not entirely cured of their delusion as applied to our merchant marine. it has been repeatedly declared that the 5 per cent discriminating duty ' provision in the Underwood law is the plan followed by "our fathers'--un- der which we once had a merchant marine that was the glory of the seas and the pride of the American na- tion. Nothing could possibly be fur- ther from the facts. The plan of our fathers was to increase the duty on goods carried in foreign ships. The plan of the Underwood bill is to de- crease the duty on goods carried in American ships. The plan of the fathers affected - all imports - alike, whether dutiable or free. The Demo- cratic law affects only goods that are dutiable. . The plan of our : fathers was protection. The plan of Democ- facy is free trade. Ihe plan of. our fathers was effective. The plan of Democracy is ridiculous. The plan of our fathers suited their time. It was effective and it showed their wisdom and their patriotism, but in this modern world of commerce the plan of our fathers would be as antiquated as would their ancient flint-lock rifles with which they gained their liberty, in a war today against modern weapons. Only Remedy Left Democracy The Democratic party has forever pledged itself against direct aid to shipping and against any increase of duty on imports. There is but one other way left, and that remedy the decadent democracy of Jefferson and Jackson. are already 'claiming is the only remedy, and that is the social- istic remedy of the government buy- ing, owning and operating its own vessels. Six months ago I made the prediction that before the end of this administration the Democratic party would be insisting on the government buying and operating ships as a way tO, @ct.a merchant. marine... There could be no doubt that they would do this if they did anything, for it was the only method left open to them. This socialistic proposition is al-