Page images
PDF
EPUB

advantage will be given us by the Panama Canal in gaining that business.

Now I take up the next question, and I am glad that some of our friends who are so bitterly opposed to the railroads are not here.

It is an absurd fallacy to consider always a railroad as a great institution always paying excessive dividends on watered stock and never paying wages to a large number of workingmen. These wages always lie as a first charge upon the receipts of the railroad, whether dividends are paid to the stockholders or not.

And when men are talking about doing great harm to the Pacific railroads they are not doing it, in the first place, only to the stockholders who are, many of them, people of moderate means, but they are doing great harm to the working classes on the railroads, and they are cutting off a filtering process of profit going through the whole community. A great deal of wrong has been done by railroads. The only railroad stock I have ever held is stock in the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad, and I suffer from that now. But I can see no objection to sound management of a railroad like the Pennsylvania Railroad, if it is managed on a sound basis, with the rates under the control of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which pays regular salaries and good salaries to its employees. When you lessen in any way by unfair action, by unfair competition, the wage profit of such a railroad, you are doing a great harm to the community. As for myself I think that the railroads with their large stock shares distributed among the hundreds of small holders, and with their large and enormous numbers of employees, are just as much to be considered as the few shipowners with their sailor crews, and therefore I always look with a good deal of caution at what I call the antirailroad argument as one that has to be examined with very great care and possibly has to be qualified to a considerable degree.

I now come to the merchant-marine argument, which is likewise unsound and can safely be challenged if the increase of 50 cents a ton on goods transported from the Atlantic to the Pacific is sure to kill the merchant marine of the United States, as these calamity howlers assert.

If the addition of 50 cents a ton to this saving of $5, the saving of $5 between the transcontinental railroads and traffic through the canal, is going to kill that business it must be a very weak business, but I do not believe that will be the case at all. It will continue to have an absolute monopoly of the coastwise trade of the United States, and its immediate demise need not be looked for.

The "solemn pledge to the people" argument is too absurd for words. It is the silly refuge of unscrupulous opponents who have no sound arguments to offer. The argument is that as this exemption clause was put in the law a large number of people have prepared to take advantage of it, and therefore it is a great wrong to them if you do not allow it. That implies that once a law is passed it must never be altered. We have never hesitated to alter in the past tariff law after tariff law when manufacturers were working under it, and it seems perfectly proper for the Government if it sees proper to reverse its policy, and doing so without any charge that it has once entered into a solemn pledge with the people and it can not be avoided.

I am now going to enter on a question which you find discussed a good deal

Senator SIMMONS. You would not consider taking the duty off a product from Germany, Great Britain, or France by this Government, a surrender to Great Britain, Germany, or France?

Mr. Fox. Oh, not in the slightest. I am coming to that a little later.

The absence of American shipping from over-seas trade and the trade of the Suez Canal is not keenly to be regretted unless we are ready to operate such ocean-going ships on the same basis as is done by European nations. It seems to me that that is a self-evident proposition. When we enter into the ocean traffic business we enter into competition with the world. We can not protect that as we protect our manufacturers in our coastwise trade. We have got to enter upon those conditions, and those conditions have been very well brought out here by Mr. Outerbridge. I do not want to dwell on them. You are dealing with a densely populated nation, willing to receive a small interest on its capital and having a large population to provide for. Moreover, in the case of England the great opportunity of ocean trade is almost a necessity for her because of her wide-apart colonies. She must have that trade to protect herself and provided for her food supply, a large navy and a large merchant marine, and it is not anything like as essential for us to have a merchant marine as it is for her, because we are a compact nation, hemmed in by water on every side, and raising almost all we need in our own territory, and not with outlying colonies on every side which we need to protect or defend.

The life of a sailor on long voyages, from the point of view of morality, domestic happiness and family life, is very much inferior to the life of landsmen living with their families and enjoying regularly the happiness and moral restraints of home.

I have crossed the ocean 24 times. This summer will be the twentyfifth. I am always interested to see the wage that I learn that the steward and the seamen receive. And they are pitiful. Of course, the steward gets from each passenger $2.50 as a bonus for each voyage or more, if you please, but the regular rate is $25. I should certainly not want any young man that I was interested in to spend all his life upon the ocean, living as they do. I think we all understand that the life of a seaman is not as conducive to living with morality as a man living with his family. The bunks where he sleeps are hard places. He is exposed to a great deal of danger, and in foreign ports to a great deal of immorality of all sorts. And I am not so solicitous or so concerned that a large number of American young men should spend their lives as seamen on the ocean when they can spend their lives with their families on shore in occupations that take them home at night with their families. at least once a week or more.

Therefore I myself am not an ustomed to deplore the fact that we have not an enormous merchant marine, berause of the fact that the profits of the business are not great, because the wages of those employed in it are low as compared with what we have in other lines, and because of the moral changes and the separation of families thereby involved.

It is not strange that we have not many vessels going through the Suez Canal, because the Suez Canal binds together portions of the

world with which we have no immediate connection. That is, Asia and Europe, and it is a most natural fact that England should have a large portion of the trade of the Suez Canal and Germany have the next largest trade. For that reason many people count it as unfortunate, but we should have to maintain our ships largely on the European and Asiatic side all the time if we were going to make use of the Suez Canal. Therefore I do not think it is a very serious thing for us to worry about that our ships do not use the Suez Canal.

I wanted to speak of one or two things in connection with the Suez Canal which may be novel and which I think might well be brought out here. I wonder if we realize when we are talking about competi tion with the Suez Canal what the power of that corporation is and what its income is. Its stock is 1,000 per cent. That is, a $100 share is worth $1,000. It is a private company. I have seen in the newspapers-I think in the Washington Post-that the English Government remitted the tolls. I do not believe that can be so. That is the first time I have ever heard it. The English Government gets a very large return on its money, and that goes into the public treasury and is figured in their budget. But I have never seen in the study of the budget any item indicating in the slightest that the ships using that canal had their tolls remitted. Although that is stated in the paper I do not believe there is a basis of fact for it at all or that it can be justified in any way.

Another reason for thinking so is this: Still large quantities of coal go around the Cape of Good Hope rather than going through the Suez Canal. If the English Government were accustomed to remit the tolls through the canal that would not be the case; these coal ships would be sure to get their rebate as well as anybody else; but they do go around the Cape of Good Hope to the East simply because they save the tolls, and they think it is saving money in that way. Now, I come to anti-England argument, and possibly it is well that some of the committee are not present. That is the argument which is sometimes called twisting the lion's tail. It seems to me that is discredital le to any man who makes use of it. It is founded on false assumptions and should not be used by self-respecting American citizens. "Did ever daughter have such a mother; did ever mother have such a daughter?" That, it seems to me, is the proper position of every American toward England. For the last 50 years England has been far and away the best friend of the United States among the nations of the world.

[ocr errors]

The CHAIRMAN. How many years did you say?

Mr. Fox. Fifty years, or I should say, however, 48 or 49 years, in my opinion. This can be easily shown by a study of her history along five lines. First is free trade. May I touch upon that point a moment, because it has been spoken of? I have not yet been able to quite satisfy myself upon this subject, but I think I am right. We, as you know, absolutely forbid anything but an American registry ship from entering into our coastwise trade. But England, since 1848 or 1850, has thrown her coastwise trade open to the world.

The CHAIRMAN. 1856, I think, is the correct date.

Mr. Fox. It is in Livy's History of British Commerce. Since that time she has thrown it open. When I have urged that argument I have been sometimes told that she discriminated in ports as to port duties. I have never yet been able to satisfy myself about that.

That is, if an American ship were running from, say, Edinburgh to London, that it would have to pay somewhat higher port duties than a British ship would pay. I have never been able to satisfy myself that that was so. But even if it is so England is far more génerous to all other nations than other nations treat her. She is the only one who treats the foreign nations on equality with herself, just as she treats the manufacturers of all other nations on an equality with herself. I ask you to think what would have happened to this country if England during these 50 years had done what Germany has done to us in the last 30 years, or what France has done? That is, if she had charged $3 for every quarter of wheat. England has been the great market for the central West and for the wheat growers of the United States for 50 years. If she had put that tariff on it would have been a tremendous blow to the United States farmer everywhere. A large portion of his prosperity has been due to this noble and generous position of England with regard to the trade of the world. And therefore I maintain that you can not name a single nation in the world that has shown such great pecuniary benefit to the United States as Great Britain has on the subject of free trade.

The next point is upon the maintenance of the gold standard. I conclude now that we are all agreed to that, and yet I can remember back about 1890 a very eminent Senator, who wanted to coerce England because of her adherence to the gold standard, had the same twisting the lion's tail argument against her because she refused to take up bimetallism. I think we will all now acknowledge that she has been of tremendous benefit to us in our prosperity by her firm adherence to the gold standard. For that reason I look upon her as the best friend this nation has ever had, in that respect in the last 50 years.

Prof. Irving Fisher, whom I consider one of the best financial authorities, in speaking to me of that, brought out a point at which I was rather surprised. He said that in connection with her gold standard and free trade system she had never suffered for 50 years what was called a real deplorable financial panic. He insisted that was the case, and, coming from such a high authority, I thought it was right.

Then there is the Geneva award and arbitration. I do not want to take that up. We had to contend against her with regard to the action of the Alabama. Under the influence of Mr. Gladstone she, for the first time in history, submitted that award to arbitration and agreed to it. She set up splendid and noble principles of arbitration, which I hope to see extended still further.

Then there is the merit system in the civil service. I do not need to dwell long upon that. I think most of us feel now that is an excellent thing. We got that from England. She had, in 1848 or 1850, settled the merit system so that forever afterwards the poorest boy, such as in the case of Lord McDonald, of Ireland, who started in at the lowest rung of the ladder and rose to the heights, could be a secretary. That is one of the interesting things of English politics, that the influence of politics on office is so little. One administra tion goes out and another comes in, and there are hardly 200 men in Westminster, London, who change places. And to my mind she has set a more magnificent example to us, which I hope we will more closely approach.

The next point is her great supremacy as a great shipbuilding nation and as a shipowning nation, which is a great credit to her and worthy of our praise, for it has been won in open, fair, and free competition.

I will briefly touch upon that, and then I think I will close by 5 o'clock, which I understand is your time for closing.

It seems to me that anyone who criticizes England because of her ocean-wide supremacy does not realize the manly way in which she has won that. Take the great shipbuilding industries of Belfast and the Clyde, when those industries were first started, she labored under the worst possible natural disadvantages. The Clyde was a small river that could almost be walked across. The Belfast Lock was not deep, and by private capital she deepened both of those rivers, so that now she has in those two places the greatest shipbuilding yards in the world. Belfast has grown enormously, and simply from that reason. They have to bring the iron and coal from Scotland and Ireland, and they have brought the workingmen there, and it has grown from 100,000 in 1858 to 400,000 at the present time, and not with any protection, not with any British favoritism at all, any favoritism of the Government-in fact, the Government does not do half as much as our Government does with regard to the rivers and harbors bill. Much of the work that we pay for out of the Public Treasury is done there by private industry. The Belfast Lock was deepened and made possible. There was a big island there on which this company began its work. Now they have the Harlan & Wolf Co., which has grown to enormous dimensions entirely by British enterprise without Government help. And it seems to me it is invidious for us to criticize England upon that basis. Her great supremacy, as I say, as a shipbuilding nation is a thing we ought to give her great credit for. We would do that if it was in private business. If we saw a man starting in a private business, and raising himself up by his efforts, we would say, "Splendid fellow." I do not see why we should not say the same about Great Britain.

We have heard from Mr. Outerbridge that she pays very little subsidy in the real sense of the word. He spoke of the two Cunarders. The subsidy was paid on the agreement that they would build their ships according to certain conditions as fast cruisers, and the Government lent them money at 2 per cent. That is the subsidy which they gave the two Cunarders, the Lusitania and the Mauretania.

I regret that the men whom I have been working with for home rule, namely, the members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, have gotten into this difficulty by unwise leadership, by putting this on the ground as yielding to England, which is unworthy of them. I regret it very much because the day of English injustice to Ireland on the part of England is almost over. This year in July you will see that bill passed and become a law, and I expect in another year to see an Irish Parliament set up in Dublin. I rejoice at it, not only as I have been a home ruler, but I rejoice as an American, because it will take out of our politics a very great disturbing element, and things will then be judged for what they are. I have had the acquaintance of Mr. T. P. O'Connor and a number of other eminent home rulers. I have spoken with them, and I do not believe from what I know of them that they have any feeling with regard to this action as certain men in this country have. I think that they are mistaken in this

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »