.f w
fl
The Commoner
VOL. 15, NO. 11
30
'a,-
i
H '
I
t.
.V--
BfS
-
mi
i
t
. ;
V-
w'y
W
im-
WADOOUtBB SHIP PURCHASE
BELL
(Continued from Pago 21)
lie, federalists, democrats, repub
licans, whigs and progressives have
voted for and sustained tho principle
that tho United States may subscribe
to tho stock of private corporations.
Can there be any question as to the
necessity for an American merchant
marine? I believe there is no differ
ence of opinion on this score.
Chambers of commerce from one end
of tho country to tho other havo
passed resolutions reciting tho ne
cessity for an American merchant ma
rine. Business men and politicians
and statesmen of all shades of opin
ion are in agreement as to its ne
cessity. Even our republican friends
in congress admit the necessity, pn
March 26, 1914, Senator Weeks pre
pared and submitted to the senate a
resolution containing tho following
preamble:
"Whereas it is desirable to develop
and extend commercial relations be
tween the United States and the coun
tries of South America by tho estab
lishment of direct lines of communi
cation for carrying the United States
mails, for tho transportation of. pas
sengers and freight, and
"Whereas private capital has not
engaged in this service to a sufficient
extent to furnish facilities compar
able to thoso enjoyed by the people
of other countries having trade re
lations with South America,
"Therefore it is resolved that the
secretary of the navy bo authorized
to prepare a plan for tho operation
of some of the navy cruisers between
New York and New Orleans, the city
of Valparaiso, Chile, and intermedi
ate points."
And subsequently Mr. Weeks pre
sented to tho senate a bill to carry
out ..his plan, in which the secretary
of the navy was authorized "to es
tablish ono or more navy mail lines,
by employing such vessels of the
navy as in his discretion are avail
able, etc., for the purpose of estab
lishing and maintaining regular com
munication between the east or
west coast, or both coasts of the
United States, and either, or both,
coasts of South America, and between
tho United States and tho countries
of Europe." The secretary of J the
navy was also authorized to prescribe
regulations for the operation of such
vessels and to fix the rate or rates at
which mail, passengers, and freight
coma oo carried.
Can you imagine a more direct
method . of putting tho government
into the shipping business than to
transform our battleships and cruis
ers and other naval vessels into mer
chant ships, operating them through
and by virtue of the direct sover
eignty of the United States govern
ment?
Just ono month after Mr. Weeks
bill to put tho navy in tho shipping
business had passed tho senate, Judge
Alexander, chairman of tho house
committee on merchant marine and
fisheries, Introduced a bill authoriz
ing tho government to take stock in
a shipping corporation,, just as the
government owns tho stock of the
, Panama Railroad and Steamship cor
poration, and to build or purchase
some adequate steamships and put
t them into serve between the leading
, porta of the United States and the
i leading ports of South America.
Now .these merchant ships, under
j ,the Alexander bill, would have been
suitable for service, instead of car
Tying only 17 to 20 passengers and
450 tons of express freight, they
would have been able to carry a large
(number of passengers and a great
I
cargo of general freight, which
Would havo mado them not only
iihighly useful to our commerce but
"t would have made their operation
'; profitable. Such a service as that
-proposed- by the Alexander bill would
not havo been a "makeshift," as
Senator Galllnger described tho
Weeks bill, and tho service proposed
by tho Alexander bill would have
created, as Senator Galllnger de
scribed it, a "boom in American
trado which would astonish not only
our own people but the world." Any
number of desirable ships could have
been bought at that time, and at ex
tremely low prices, if the Alexander
bill had been promptly passed, and
it would not have been necessary, nor
was it the intention, to purchase the
ships belonging to any ' belligerent
power tied up in tho harbors or wa
ters of tho United States. With ex
traordinary inconsistency, the repub
lican senators in congress, after vot
ing to put the government into the
steamship business by operating an
inadequate service with naval ves
sels, fought liko tigers against the
passage of the Alexander bill, which
was the only practical measure pro
posed to solve the pressing ocean
transportation problem then, and un
til this time, confronting the nation.
Tho congress authorized by reso
lution the holding of a Pan-American
Financial conference in the city of
Washington, and appropriated $50,
000. for the rurpose of paying its
expenses and entertaining, as the
guests of the nation, the delegates
of the eighteen Latin American coun
tries which were represented in that
conference. The secretary of the
treasury, under the direction of the
resolution, represented this govern
ment in this conference, and by the
authority of the congress he invited
leading bankers and business men of
tho United States to participate in
the proceedings. By unanimous vote
of the delegates representing all tho
countries of Central and South Amer
ica, and of the one hundred or more
leading bankers and business men of
tho United States whom tho secre
tary of tho treasury had invited to
that conference, the following reso
lution waa adopted:
"Resolved, That it is the sense of
this conference that improved ocean
transportation facilities between the
countries composing the Pan-Amer
ican Union have become a vital and
imperative necessity, and that every
effort should be made to secure, at
the earliest possible moment, such
improved means of ocean transporta
tion, since- it is of primary import
ance to the extension of trade and
'commerce and improved financial re
lations between tho American repub
lics." I violate no confidence when I tell
you that the delegates of South
America returned to their homes with
a feeling of disappointment that no
practical means had been evolved by
tho conference for the creation of
those steamship lines and facilities
which they declared to be absolutely
vital for the protection of trade and
intercourse between their countries
and ours. I. earnestly hone that the
next session of the congress may
promptly pass some measure which
will meet the existing situation and
enablo us to seize and possess our
selves permanently of the greatest
opportunity ever presented to this
nation of establishing enduring and
mutually profitable commercial and
friendly relations with our neighbors
of the South American continent.
The claim Is mado that the govern
ment snouitt not provide the mo
posed steamship facilities because It
will interfero with private enter
prise. According to the testimony
of Senators Weeks, Galllnger and
other distinguished men, American
uiuurpnse nas xaueci to enter the
South American field. They told us
so when they voted for the adoption
by the senato of tho resolution intro
duced by Senator Weeks, which de
clares that "it is desirable to develop
and extend commercial relations with
South America by tho establishment
of direct lines of communication for
carrying tho United States mails, for
tho transportation of passengers and
freight," and that "private capital
has not engaged in this service to a
sufficient extent to furnish facilities
comparablo to those enjoyed by the
people of other countries having
trade relations with South America."
How could tho government, there
fore, interfero with private capital,
if it should undertake to give relief
to South America, when private cap
ital, as Senators Weeks and (Jallinger
and their colleagues declared, had
failed to occupy that field?
For tho past fifty years the gov
ernment has given private capital the
monopoly of the ocean transportation
field. Private capital has failed to
take advantage of its monopoly by
developing the necessary steamship
lines. Should we continue any long
er this nionopoly in favor of private
capital, when it refuses to take ad
vantage of it, and by so doing de
prives our people of those facilities
which are essential to their welfare
and prosperity?
Shall this giant nation, strong in
jesources, intelligence and courage,
sit impotently any longer and wait
for indifferent private capital to build
our naval auxiliaries and supply the
marine facilities imperatively de
manded for national preparedness
and protection in time of war and
for the welfare of our people and the
promotion of our commerce in time
of peace? We may as well ask pri
vate capital to build our navy, or
hesitate to have a navy unless we
can operate it at a profit.
I have no patience with the argu
ment that the government should not
supply needed or essential facilities
or service to our people unless a
profit can be earned. When private
capital can not, or will not supply
such facilities or service, then it is
the duty of the government to sup
ply them. If this "profit" lino of
reasoning had prevailed, would we.
ever have built the Panama canal?
Absolutely no. Here is a huge en
terprise vital to our material inter
ests and to the interests of humanity.
The undertaking, was so large and
tho cost so great that private capital
would not assume it. It was also
certain from the very outset that the
earnings of the canal would not even
pay tho Interest at three per cent on
the investment; that they would not
pay the cost of maintenance and op
eration for many years to come. Did
that deter the government from un
dertaking this great work and per
forming this great servico for the
welfare of all the people? Fortun
ately such arguments did not prevail.
We have the Panama canal and it is
worth to this nation many times more
each year in actual dollars than the
annual loss sustained. Suppose we
had waited until now for private cap
ital to build tho Panama canal. We
would not even have made a begin
ning. We have done the same thing in
building the Alaskan railroad to de
velop one of the greatest storehouses
of wealth for the benefit of all the
people. Private capital would nnf. dn
It, so tho government has undertaken
it. No doubt many years will elapse
before the earnings of the road will
show a profit on the investment, but
tno indirect oenent and profit to the
people of this coun.try, to say noth
ing of tho direct benefit to the noio
of Alaska and tho northwest iOre
tVinti -InaHfir V. n..i.4. ; A .
wMU juoujv "aw hvuuu oi m gov
ernment. Can we afford to say that the gov
ernment shall never do anything for
tho general welfare unless each
agency can earn a profit? If we did,
the government would and should go
out of existence.
Take the public health service, for
example. Ono of its chief functions
Is to protect our people against the
importation of contagious and infec
tlous diseases. Two years ago thfl
bubonic plague appeared in a?n
Francisco. Rats become deadly en.
emies at such times becauso thev
are tho most dangerous agency for
tho spread of the disease. The treaq
ury department, of which the public
health service is a bureau, was an
nealed to for help. Wo spent hun
dreds of thousands of dollars for tho
extermination of the rats and the
plague. We shall nevor see that
money again, but we saved San Fran
cisco. Would you havo had the gov
ernment leave the people of San
Francisco in peril until it could be
assured of a profit on dead rats? Im
agine the government hesitating to
act in such an emergency becauso it
could not see a profit on tho opera
tion of saving the people.
We maintain a life saving service
at a cost of $2,600,000 per annum.
We saved 4,700 human lives during
the fiscal year of 1914, but we didn't
make a profit. Imagine a human be
ing drowning and calling for help
and Uncle Sam standing on the shore
and shouting back that the price for
each life saved is so "many dollars,
and refusing to help the drowning
citizen until the prico was secured!
Should we allow 4,700 people to
drown each year because we can not
savo them at a profit?
A less extreme case is the revenue
cutter service. We saved that year
approximately $9,000,000 of prop
erty imperiled at sea. We made no
profit on it, and it costs $2,500,000
per year to operate the service. Sal
vage companies complain because tho
government interferes with "private
business" in saving life and property
endangered at sea. Shall such sor
did considerations deter the govern
ment from operating useful agencies
for the welfare of our country and
the protection of humanity? Such
arguments are not worth listening to,
but they show the absurdity of one
of tho arguments made by the op
ponents of a merchant marine backed
by the government, viz: that it ought
not to be created because it may be
operated at a loss. Such a consider
ation should not be tho determining
factor in any matter like a naval
auxiliary merchant marine, which in
volves the vital interests of the na
tion. If the government backs a
shipping corporation as proposed I
believe that it will operate at a profit
and not at a loss.
The champions of subsidy and pri
vate capital say that wo must change
our navigation laws, as well as give
subsidies, before private enterprise
will come io the front. There seemi
to bo a great conflict of opinion
among these gentlemen as to Just
what these changes should be, but
they all seem to agree that the most
important changes they want relate
principally to tho American seamen.
Complaint is made that under our
laws a larger number of seamen are
required in the crews of the snips,
that higher wages must be paid to
them, and that the general standards
for tho comfort and upkeep of our
onllnKfl nn Vnniri all Inn &m mOTO "
vorable to our sailors than those or
other countries and, therefore, tflas
it is more expensive to operate unjer
our flag than under the flags of otner
countries. .
I have no doubt that there are in
equalities and inconsistencies In our
navigation laws that can be correct
With advantage to the country, in
shipping board can perform a mo
useful service by studying these laws
and making intelligent recommend
tions to the congress. .
But I do not believe that the stand
ards for the American seamen shoiua
be lowered, nor do I believe that any
congress of the United States w
ever lower them The reasons id
lieve it would be unwise ax
first, the question of humanity. i
rt
m
j ,
