38 REPORT ‘OF AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE COMMISSION.

The total expenditures for the first year, from July 1, 1903, to June
30, 1906, under the proposed bill, for naval retainers, subventions, and
mail subventions, all included, would therefore be:
Naval retainers and subventions........
Mail subventions (one-fourth of maximum).

Ceeoo. $2,394,355
© 866,250
. 3,060,605
As to the probable rate of increase in the expenditures for the naval
retainers and subventions to general shipping, it may be said that the
proposed legislation would .prove satisfactory it it added the second
year 3,000 naval volunteers, at a cost of $150,000, and 100,000 tons of
new merchant and fishing tonnage of an effective type, in the ratio of
75,000 tons of steam to 25,000 tons of sail, the cost being $375,000 and
$100,000, respectively, or a total increase for men and ships of
$635,000—malking an aggregate expenditure for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1907, of $3,029,355.
A JUST MEASURE OF RETALIATION.
An important memorial in regard to discriminating duties, which
has been submitted to the Commission by commercial organizations of
the central Northwest, states:
We believe that a great injury would result if the United States took the initiative
in discriminating against the ships or goods of other nations. But if other nations
liscriminate against our products there should be a swift and severe retaliation. We
should not commence commercial warfare, but if others inflict injuries upon us we
must not shrink from vigorously protecting our own interests. If Great Britain
takes the initiative and discriminates unjustly and injuriously against our agriculaural
 export trade, then there should be invoked the old rule of conduct laid down
ov our fathers nearly a century ago to meet similar cases of injustice.
This memorial calls attention to the fact that there is nothing in our
commercial agreement with Great Britain which could prevent Congress
 from meeting such a discrimination against our agricultural
exports as involved in the proposed policy of Mr. Chamberlain by
invoking against British vessels in the indirect carrying trade the
retaliation authorized by section 23 of the Dingley law, as follows:
That no goods, wares, or merchandise, unless in cases provided for by treaty, shall
be imported into the United States from any foreign port or place, except in vessels
of the United States, or such foreign vessels as truly and wholly belong to the citizens
or subjects of that country of which the goods are the growth, production, or manufacture,
 or from which such goods, wares, or merchandise can only be, or most usually
are, first shipped for transportation. All goods, wares, or merchandise imported
contrary to this section, and the goods wherein the same shall be imported, together
with her cargo, tackel, apparel, and furniture, shall be forfeited to the United States;
and such goods, wares, or merchandise, ships or vessel, and her cargo shall be liable
to be seized, prosecuted, and condemned in like manner, and under the same regulations
 and provisions as have been heretofore established for the recovery, collection,
distribution, and remission of forfeitures to the United States by several revenue
aw.

Total _

As the Dingley law now stands, section 24 provides:
That the preceding section shall not apply to vessels or goods, wares, or merchanjise
 imported in vessels of a foreign nation which does not maintain a similar regnlation
 against vessels of the United States.
The Northwest memorial suggests that there be provided an amendment
 to section 24 of the Dingley law so that it shall at once be made
ready to give full effect to section 23—
to protect any of our national interests against the aggression of maritime nations
doing a profifable freighting business with our people by our sufferance. By that