New-York tribune., 1909-07-17
TIE CANAL RONDS.

The decision reached at Washington 10 re-
pay to the Treasury out Of a further issue or
Panama Canal bonds the S5O.OO0,Oo0 cash used
IN 19G3-'04 10 purchase the plant and title OF
the French Panama Canal Company and the
100000 given te the Republic Of Panama
for a right OF way across the isthmus &c
cords with sound national policy. The Tribune
has always favored limiting the share Of the
cost Of the Panama Canal enterprise TO be
charged up to a generation which Will be 10
only moderate extent benefited by the growth
in commerce resulting from the linking Of the
two oceans. We have repeatedly said that too
great a proportion Of the cost Of the investment
made al Panama was being met out of the
governments current income Five years ago
the Treasury went into debt S41,77o,571 in
order TO close up the bargain with the French
company and with Panama. A surplus Of more
than SSGO0Gg0 in 1903-'04 was converted into
a deficit exceeding S41.0G0Goo by taking $50
100000 Of ordinary Treasury receipts 10 satisfy
an extraordinary obligation.
The money should have been repaid when the
first Panama Canal bonds We're sold Il was
not but on the contrary, more cash was taken
10 pay for construction work on the canal.
and the Treasury is now n the position Of
having advanced the larger share Of the money
50 far spent on the canal project. It is not
fair TO the taxpayers Of this generation that
they should be asked TO bear so disprOportiOnate
a share Of the burdens Of the canal project The
enterprise is a permanent national work It's
benefits are ali in the future. II has com
naercial as well 3 political and a military
purpose. Il may some day yield return on
the capital invested Why should not that re-
7urn be counted on 10 repay. in whole or in
part the original cost? The Suez Canal has
proved q surprising money maker. The Panama
Cansl may turn out TO be a good business in
vestment. If 1t should. the next generation
would be reaping a handsome profit on this
generations sacrifices. If the canal never pays
commercially there Is all the more reason why
the apparent loss on the investment should be
spread over a long series Of years instead Of
being met by excessive drafts on the Treasury's
resources covering only the short initial period
II viii be charged. Of course that the ad-
rnjnistratiou is trying 70 overcome threaten
ing deficit by bookkeeping subterfuges But
such charges are III founded The balance
soon 10 be recovered through the conversion OF
constructive Panama obligations into cash will
he welcome to the Secretary Of the Treasury
II VIII be used 10 defray current expenditures
But IL will be properly so used. It was ad-
vanced out Of current receipts and is merely
g temporary loan, recalled at the Treasury's
convenience. The Evening POST is certainly
capIiOus when il says: 1T is source Of re-
egret that matter Of national finance should
.'be handled mainly with a view 10 the cam
'spaign book Of the next Presidential election"
Democratic critics in 1861 accused the RooSe
Telt administration Of extravaganza because
II created seeming deficit by taking $4,000
ogO on Of the Treasury's cash fund TO pur-
chase the canal plant and right Of way. Now
they accuse the Taft administration Of indrec~
ton and juggling because it replaces the $50
100000 Making the loan involved paying
the loan The only result OF the two transac-
tons is to put the cost Of the canal where it