74 REPORT OF AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE COMMISSION.

Many other similar statements might be quoted. As far back as
1896 Mr. John Roach, the great shipbuilder. said:
The high cost of iron produced by the tariff upon it is one of the principal difficulties
 our. commerce has to contend with. I did not come here to ask a bounty. I
came here to tell you that, while all other articles of American produce are protected
 to a great extent, there is no protection for American ships. If Congress will
sake off all the duties from American iron, then we are prepared to compete with
foreign shipbuilders. The labor question is misstated. We are prepared to meet
that difficulty and to ask no further legislation on the subject.
Since then materials and supplies for our ships in foreign trade have
been put upon the free list. The testimony before the Merchant Marine
Commission shows that, for numerous reasons, this discrimination in
favor of our foreign ship builders and owners has been of no practical
benefit to them. One of the reasons, if not the prime one, is that ships
built from foreign materials, in whole or in part, can not be used in oar
coastwise trade. To give our shipbuilders any bevefit from free
materials the tariff must be removed from materials from all ships.
Probably also it will be necessary to remove the duties not only for
materials but from all materials sold cheaper abroad than-at home. In
this way, and in this way only, will our shipbuilders be enabled to
obtain our materials at the prices at which they are sold to foreign
shipbuilders.
There was some startling testimony as to the difference of prices of
materials to American and to foreign shipbuilders. Thus, Mr. Edwin
S. Cramp told the Commission that steel plates, shapes, angles, channel
 and bulb angles were, on May 27, 1904, selling ‘at 1.75 cents per
pound while the prices ruling in England would permit these same
materials to be delivered, clear of insurance and freight, but no duty
paid, at Philadelphia for 1.40 cents per pound. He said that foreign
shipbuilders were then paying about $25 per ton for materials that
post American builders about &10.
Thus far we have outlined briefly some measures for the relief of
our shipping interest which if enacted into law would, in our judgment,
 accomplish substantial and permanent good without injustice to
any other American interest and without doing violence to any fundamental
 principle of right or of organic law.
We regret that we can not agree with the majority of the Commission
 in the legislation proposed. It would have been very gratifying
to us if a unanimous report could have been made, and we _ been
willing to make concessions in order to accomplish this result. While
there are objections to the entire bill as reccommended by the majority,
we are disposed to withhold any opposition except to sections 2, 8, and 4.
These sections provide for direct subsidies, and are so obnoxious to
Democratic principles and to the economic sense of the country that
we are compelled to enter our earnest protest against their enactment,
into law.
Its chief difference from former direct subsidy bills is that it is not
as honest as these bills were. It displaces the word * subsidy” with
the word ‘‘ subvention” and through the explanation with which it is
launched seeks to create the impression that it only gives back to the
shipping industry what is taken from it, or rather that it gives back to
American ships what is taken in increased tonnage taxes from ships of
all nations. But, on the contrary, it places in the Treasury the amounts
to be received under it through tonnage taxes and takes out of the