Republican Opposition To The Ship Subsidy Bill

THE ARGUS DEMOCRAT and YPSILANTI WEEKLY TIMES.

Published by

The Democrat Publishing Company,

G.A Hammond, President.

S.W. Beakes, Secy, and Treas.

Published every Friday

for $1.00 per year strictly in advance.

Enteredat the Post office in Ann Arbor Mich as second-class mail matter.

Friday, May 16, 1902

REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION TO THE SHIP SUBSIDY BILL.

   The House Merchant Marine committee is continuing the consideration of the ship subsidy bill. People from various interests are being heard relative to the bill, both for and against it.  The trend of sentiment seems not to be growing in the direction of the measure, but against it. This is shown quite as much by the expressed opinions of members of congress as by the opinion s of those who have been fore the committee. Of course the democrats of the house are practically a unit against the measure. Th drift Of congressional sentiment is shown in the number of republicans who are on record against it. Below are a few of these:

   Mr. Henry C. Hmith of Michigan: "I do not believe we ought to pay a subsidy for carrying wind, and that is what the pending bill proposes to do. The subsidy is proposed, applies as much to vessels when empty as when they are carrying a full load."

   Mr. Samuel W. Smith of Michigan: "I opposed the subsidy bill in the Iast congress, but have not yet examined the details of the pending bill."

   Mr. Curtis of Kansas: "l was opposed to the bill as presented to the last congress. I have not had time to carefully examine the bill as it now stands, but I understand that the objections to the old bill have not been entirely removed in the new. lf this should appear to be true when the bill comes up,  I shall oppose it and in so doing; I think I shall represent the sentiment of Kansas."

   Mr. Hepburn of lowa: "I am willing to vote for a subsidy bill under certain conditions, but I am not willing to vote extravagant appropriations for that purpose. I want the subsidy limited to vessels adapted to cargoes rather than passengers.  I do not look upon the pending senate bill as accomplishing what I would want in a subsidy bill."

   Mr. Barney of Wisconsin: "I am opposed to the pending subsidy bill because, as it is framed, it is in the  in the interest of large shipowners and shipbuilders and not in the interest of smaller ones. While I favor in a general way the promotion of foreign commerce, I am not in favor of protecting large corporations by giving them an advantage over smaller ones."

   Mr. Woods of California: "I am opposed the pending ship subsidy bill. First, because it does not subsidize in equitable proportions the proper kind of ships. The slow ships in are need of a subsidy- not the greyhounds of the sea.  The latter can pay good dividends without any subsidy. Second, I am opposing any ships manned substantially by foreign sailors. This bill gives subsidy to a number of ships that employ Chinese labor."

   Mr. Crumpacker of Indiana: "The tendency toward consolidation on the part of the great international steamship lines will defeat the object of the pending ship subsidy bill and ought to defeat the bill itself. The country will not consent to the payment of large subsidies to steamship companies that have become part of ocean transportation combinations organized for the purpose of keeping up ocean freight rates."

   Those who believe that Governor Bliss should be  term because that is republican "precedent," generally speaking are politicians who leave something to gain by so doing. The precedent business is nothing more than in the most than at most a fetich set up by the  politicians to gain a point for themselves against the people. If they can convince the people that there is weight in such a fool claim, they thus gain a point in the interest of boss control at the expense of good government.  A governor who has made a record which warrants his farther consideration at the hands of the people will experience no difficulty in securing a renomination. And if he has not made a good record he is not entitled to a second term, no matter what the precedent may be.   Precedent may bring some strength to the candidacy of Gov. Bliss for renomination, but certainly there is nothing in his record which would influence the people to honor him again. To do so is to dishonor themselves. There is mighty little his record that should commend him to the people. His campaign for nomination was the must scandalous in the history of the state. No such open and shameless use of money to accomplish a political purpose was ever before witnesses in Michigan. Then, when he had in in this way secured his nomination and election, the management of his administration was placed in the hands of the disreputable politicians who had politicians who had performed his dirty worked for him. Tip Atwood and others of the "immortals" directed his acts. They enacted the ripper Iegislation whereby the chief city of the state was deprived of the right to govern itself. They prevented the passage of primary election laws, where-by the chief city of the state was deprived of the right to govern itself. They prevented the passage of primary election laws, whereby the control of nominations could be kept in the hands of the people.  They prevented legislation in the interest of equal taxation.  His administration has been weak and vacillating in almost all matters of direct interest to the people.  So far, below the average has his administration been in ability and grasp of state issues that there are none of his predecessors with which to compare him.  Precedent is naturally insisted upon to aid such a man for he has nothing else to commend him.  But the people should establish a precedent of their own by retiring him to private life.

  WHEN WILL THE REFORM BEGIN?

  Hon. A. J. Sawyer's remarks as reported in yesterday's Argus relative to the "terrible influence that money has nowadays in controlling political parties" are to the point just now in the present campaign.  "If there is not an end put to it mighty soon, there is liable to be an uprising of the people." That there is the gravest danger in this use of money is admitted by all thinking men, but still the politicians go on recklessly from bad to worse in this corrupt use of money, thwarting the will of the people and making the expression of the public wishes as obtained in our caucuses and conventions indicative of nothing but cold cash. Men are hired to go to the caucuses and vote for the men whom the bosses want sent to conventions as delegates.  These delegates in turn are bought and sold like any other commercial commodity.  The men nominated for the highest offices by these delegates are often in no sense representatives of the wishes of the people or anything else but the money they or their friends have used in buying delegates.  When the voters go to the polls, they are little interfered with in their suffrage rights, but there is mighty little virtue in this because they then have to vote for the boss made tickets, and any choice they may exercise is but a choice of evils.

   Then when these boss and money made candidates are elected and come to administer the office, their duties are not performed in the interest of the people, but in the interest of the bosses and tricksters and scoundrels who manipulated the caucuses and conventions and collected and dispursed the money for that purpose. The great corporations contribute immense corruption funds for campaign purposes and in return demand special privileges and there are non bold enough to deny them their pound of flesh.  Thus does the government which in theory recognizes the equality of all men before the law, become a government of special privileges to those who are able to get them.  Citizens who decry such methods are sneered at as old-fashioned and, if they go to the primaries and make an effort to correct these evils, they are pretty certain to find their counsels rejected and themselves thrown down by a lot of hired bums.

   Although these things are matters of common knowledge to all who have their eyes open, still the great of people seem to rest under them with comparatively little concern.  Of course the people might correct these evils if they would, but it requires more determination to correct them that they seem willing to expend so long as these conditions can be endured.  It would seem that Michigan is getting very near to the place where something must needs to be done to stem the tide of corrupt control of public matters.   Yet according to all signs we are now entering upon another campaign of this low down, corrupt kind, and still there are no indications of an uprising on the part of the people.  As yet they seem more strongly wedded to a party than to good government. It may not be predicted yet, therefore, when the reform will set in.

  The people generally may not care particularly about the thrown-down   Editor Helber in his ambition to be postmaster of Ann Arbor, but they are not apt to take much stock in a man who has shown the disposition to practice such duplicity on a friend as Congressman Smith seems to have practiced on Helber.  If Smith would do that kind of dirty work on Helber would he not do the same on any other constituent?