Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1906-03-01
TO the CANAL.
Railroads Accused of Hinderine
the Work.
FREIGHT MOVEMENT BLOCKADED,

serious Charges Made Against South
ern Pacihc-AIlcgcd Action of This
Company Furnishes "a Strong Ar:u-
lncnt For Control OF
Railways.
The Southern Pacific railroad is
charged by Secretary Taft and Chief
Engineer Stevens OF the Panama canal
commission with willfully %blockading
the movement of freight on the pana-
ma railroad.
THE Southern Pacific Railway COM
pany controls the Pacific Mail Steam
ship company, according to the testi-
mony OF Mr.. Taft and MI. Stevens,
who say that since the a%brogation Of
the freight agreement between the
Panama railroad and the steamship
company the latter has been dilatory
in calling for San Francisco freight
on the west side Of the isthmus.
ut was charged that steamers fire.
quently refuse to stop to take on
freight and even leave port with only
a partial cargo, while great quantities
of freight lie on the wharfs.
at was alleged that the apparent
motive for this course on the part of
the steamship company was to so him
der materials intended for the canal
delivered at Colon by the steamships
operated by the government from New
York that shipments would be neces-
sary over the lines of the Pacific Mail
from San Francisco.
'That the blockade had had this eff
| feet was asserted by Chief Engineer
| Stevens, who said that several cargoes
had been shipped via San Francisco
| and over the Pacific Mail for this very
reason. Other shipments will 60 this
way unless an end can be made to the
blockade"
This serious charge was made before
the committee on appropriations Of the
house Of representatives and should at
! once be Investigated, and if substanti-
| ated, as it no doubt will be, congress
should at once repeal the postal sub
| sidy paid to the Pacific Mail Steamship
company and, if possible, forfeit the
| charter Of the Southern Pacific rail-
road in the territory over which con-
| gress has control.
The question Of government control
| Of the railroads, as the Democrats have
| always %contended, is n that cannot
| be delayed, for it would appear they
have under Republican administrations
| come very nearly controlling the gov
! eminent.
This same Pacific Mail Steamship
| company is to be one of the beneficial
ries of the proposed ship subsidy bill
that Senator Gallinger and other rail-
road partisans in congress are urging.
The honest voters of New Hampshire
and other states should keep their eyes
open to the way their senators and rep
resentatives vote and work for subsidy
and railroad rate legislation.
The question the voters of the United
| States must decide when congressman
and legislatures that elect senators are
voted for next fall is, Shall the rail
roads continue to run the United States
in their interests or shall the govern
ment be administered in the interest Of
the people? No compromise should sat
isfy the voters if the present congress
! does not enact legislation to protect the
people from railroad domination and
p%lundering. The only alternative is to
~1.. r>r,o,,o+;a .rrryacc for th1t
party has shown it's willingness to vote
for the necessary law to regulate rates
by the votes Of the members Of the
party in congress, and by its national,
state and local platforms has pledged
the Democracy for all reasonable leg
1slatlon on the subject.
Apropos Of ship subsidies the New
York Times. in q recent editorial said:
ut occurs at once that there must
be a reason why Wisconsin, Nebraska.
Missouri and Iowa oppose the subsidy
bill. Besides the natural opposition Of
the inland states to anything so dis
proportionately favorable to the states
which build salt water steamships and
finance them and profit by their COM
merce, there is the unnatural omission
Of the lake region. The commerce of
the inland seas is as well worth fos-
tering as any other and better worth
fostering as a source of recruits for
the navy.
1.-THE arguments for and against the
bill, like the bill itself, are so hoary
that it is almost disrespectful to treat
them with levtty. Yet how is it pos
| sible to be serious regarding a measure
to strengthen the navy in this manner?
If the Republicans want to strengthen
the nav mere than anybody else, let
them vote the money in the naval bill
and get the goods for the price. Their
uncandid purpose is to correct the bur-
dens Of Republican legislation. Hav-
Ing made shipowning costly, they now
vote public money to make it profitable
to those whom existing laws repel
from such business. The especial ne
cessIty of laws favorlng shipbuilding.
shipowning and ship operating is that
there are especial laws discriminating
against them. II the necessity be adj
mitted, now unreasonable is q proposal
to strengthen the navy by 'subven-