Conservative * 9
In any case , would it not be well for
him to explain to a puzzled laud just
what it does mean ? Let him take the
St Louis and tell us just how much
cargo she must carry to get full subsidy ,
and give us the figures showing how the
calculation is made.
And while he is about it , might he not
also advise us whether even the little
cargo thus required of the great pas
senger steamers which are to get the
lion's share of subsidy , is not now car
ried and would not in fact be carried in
the shape , not of agricultural prod
ucts , but of protected manufactures sent
abroad to be sold at free-trade prices ,
while American citizens must pay here
from 10 to 100 per cent more for the
same goods ?
The most conclusive proof , however ,
that Senator Frye's much advertised
"Cargo Amendment" is a sham and in
tended to deceive , is the comparison of
its terms with his report.
At page 5 this report states :
"Accordingly provision is made by the
amendment , on the third page , that a
certain amount of export cargo shall be
the basis on which the subsidy to the
vessels shall be awarded. "
This is one of those half truths that
are essentially falsehoods. It is true
that the Oargo Amendment purports
( by the conundrums above noted , ) to
provide for cargoes. This provision ,
however , by the amendment itself , is
expressly limited as follows :
"Any shortage in the amount of cargo
shall diminish the amount of the com
pensation in this paragraph provided for
in the proportion , " etc.
On examination of the bill it will be
seen that the only subsidy provided for
in that paragraph ( a ) is comparatively
insignificant and varies from 1 to 1)
cents per gross ton for each one hundred
nautical miles sailed.
It is by paragraph ( b ) that are provided
the additional and more lavish subsidies
for which the head promoters of the
bill are reaching. The provision in
which the International Company is
specially interested reads as follows :
"Ninth. 21 knots or over two and
three-tenths cents per gross ton. "
On this provision there is no limita
tion based upon carrying any cargo
whatever. The cargo amendment is
found in paragraph ( a ) and its effect , by
its terms , is expressly limited to the
lesser subsidy provided by paragraph
( a ) . But , as seen above , the Inter
national's fast steamers are to receive in
addition 2.8 cents per gross for say
$16,000 for each round trip whether or
not they carry any cargo at all.
Senator Frye is in n painful position.
At page 4 of his report of February 27 ,
on this subsidy bill , he stated :
"This bill is thus primarily for the
benefit of our exports , and as agricul
ture , in bulk and value , furnishes much
the greater part of our exports , the bill
is essentially a bill to promote the ex
port of agriculture. "
Should not Senator Frye publicly
apologize for such a statement and give
the names of the scoundrels who misled
him into the pretense that the much
advertised "Cargo Amendment" was so
framed as either to help the American
farmer or to keep Mr. Griscom and his
1' ' '
International
Navigation Company'
from using his large passenger flyers to
get away with the lion's share of the
highest rate subsidies proposed by the
bill ? Of ships like these no other com
pany than Mr. Griscom's owns a single
one in either of the three classes for
which the three highest rates of subsidy
are provided.
Senator Hanna is scarcely less inter
ested , for , in his own local organ , "The
Marine Review , " ( Cleveland ) , of March
15 , he joyfully notes :
Grain Growers Endorse Shipping Bill.
"The National Grain Growers' Co
operative Association of America has
just added a powerful argument to the
many already advanced in favor of the
passage of the shipping bill. It has been
the delight of the opponents of the bill
to represent that it taxed all interests
for the benefit of one , and the wise ones
among them have sagely asked what
harvest would the vast agricultural
interests of the country reap from the
measure ? The answer has been
abundantly given by the Grain Grow
ers' Association which represents an
annual production of $4,000,000,000. In
its resolutions just adopted the associa
tion says :
11 'We desire that this bounty or sub
sidy be so arranged that it will be paid
the vessels actually engaged in carrying
the freight to market and be made so
generous to this class of ships that il
would attract the building of ships ol
this character. We are interested in
our export trade because we contribute
about 70 per cent of the entire export
trade of this nation from the farm. ' "
The "powerful argument" of these
grain growers consists in asking thai
any subsidies to be given shall go mainly
to the vessels actually engaged in carry
ing their freights to market. This the
amended bill pretends to do but does
not do. Instead , it gives the highest
rates to the passenger steamers of the
International Company , the four largest
of which will receive about $1,600,000 a
year of subsidy , although they practi
colly carry no agricultural products.
Is it not clear that this "cargo amend
ment is a bunco game and is intended as
such by the real authors of the bill the
International Company and their friend
in and out of the Standard Oil Com
pany ? Should not Senator Frye am
Mr. Grosvenor ask the authors to hand
in a new cargo amendment in which th
bunco shall be less apparent ?
CAUSES OF TRUSTS.
The oppressions to which the Ameri
can people are subjected by the powerful
combinations commonly , though er
roneously , called "Trusts , " have been so
effectively demonstrated in detail , by
previous articles in this series , that no
better statement of them could now be
made. The evil is universally acknowl
edged by members of all parties , repub
licans as much as democrats or populists.
The real and only question is the ancient
one : "What are you going to do
about it ?
More Restrictions Will Not Kill Trusts.
The very foundation principle of these
trust combinations is restriction. Frob- .
ably on the theory that fire must always
be fought with fire , every effort thus far
made by legislatures , to destroy the
power of so-called trusts , has been in >
*
the form of still further restrictions. * * *
One restriction is piled upon another ,
and still a third upon both ; and in this
way it is somehow hoped that liberty
will be established by multiplying re
straints upon liberty. The commerce
and trade of the country are tied up with
chains by the trust monopolies ; and then
congress and the legislatures seek to
nullify the effect of these chains by
chaining the chains. It is seriously pro
posed to restore free competition by
prohibiting trust combinations from
entering into competition. Laws have
been passed for the avowed purpose of
preventing combinations which control
two-thirds of the production of any
article from selling their goods in compe
tition with the producers of the remain-
ing third. It is no cause for wonder
that all the so-called anti-trust laws
have resulted in ignominious failure ,
and that the number of trust combina
tions never increased so rapidly as since
these laws were enacted.
There is but one remedy for slavery ;
and that is liberty. There is but one
remedy for monopoly ; and that is to set
free those currents which have been
restrained by monopoly. No combina
tion can ever be permanently successful
unless it is founded upon some monopoly
of natural resources. In very rare cases
such a monopoly is founded upon the
extraordinary genius of one or two men.
For this there is , and ought to be , no
remedy. Nature makes it impossible
that such a monopoly of genius should
last more than a few years ; and during
that period its benefits will far outweigh
all its disadvantages. Genius may have
an occasional monopoly ; but no one
could long have a monopoly in genius.
Nature is sure to produce a rival genius ,
who does in another way what the first
genius did in his own peculiar way.
This was strikingly illustrated in the
history of the steel manufacture. Besse
mer having invented one immensely
valuable and cheap process for making
steel , Siemens followed with another
) * &
f *
