Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1912-07-24
RAILROAD
OWNED SHIPS
ARE OPPOSED

-
SAN FRANCISCO, July i4.-Tha
opposition of the Chamber OF Com
nierce to the use of the Panama canal
BY coastwise shipping, owned or con-
trolled by railroads. Is to be fully de-
fired in the forthcoming number Of
the Chamber of Commerce Journal. In
part the Journal will say:
THE Chamber of Commerce de-
mands that no railroad-owned or con-
trolled shipping be permitted to use
the Panama canal in coastwise traffic
to any extent, or in any proportion, or
OF; any conditions whatever.
Railroads Will Control.
1.-TWO railroads owned in common
cannot be expected to enter into act
,ual competition, nor can the owners
OF steamship line be expected actu-
ally to compete with railroad which
trey also own.
"A railroad having an investment OF
$500,0OO.000 in railway lines and $751;
Oe0, 1000 in steamship lines cannot con-
ceivably permit the smaller invest,
ment injuriously to affect the larger.
The greatest benefit to be deriv-
ed from the completion of the canal
viii arise from the encouragement Of
the building and operation of suifi-
cient number Of ships to carry ade-
quately the tonnage offered, and from
the maintenance Of true sea-level
rates. These benefits, in their fullest
measure, cannot be hoped for unless
the conditions under which ships will
operate are fairly equal.
"a railroad could operate its steam
ships temporarily without profit, or
even at a loss, and thus discourage In
dependent steamships from engaging
in competition in which they would
be at a prohibitive disadvantage.
.eIf the building ard operation Of In
dependent steamships is discouraged
and the field is left to railroad-owned
OF controlled ships, we must, then, be
III the position of having to look TO
the railroads themselves for benefits
which the canal was constructed to
bestow.
1a4 f1tsi
sThe opposition of the chamber to
the use Of the Panama caral by yes
sells going coastwise and owned or
controlled by railways was not con-
ceiyed in a corporation-baiting spirit,
nor was it aimed at any particular
steamship or railroad company. It's
purpose was to defend the commerce
OF San Francisco against any POSSIBLE
ity Of transportation monopoly, and to
prevent a.bitter disappointment Of the
hopes which the people Of this city
have been warranted in basing upon
the canal as an economic factor
A Great Question.
THE question is larger than that
of any one railroad or steamship line,
and the possible loss to the Coast is
far greater than any one corporation
could cause. If half the Oriental trade
develops that we may reasonably ex-
pect. the volume Of shipping in the
Pacific will equal, and probably ex-.
coed, that in the Atlantic. Not three,
but eight or ten transcontinental rail-
roads will have their termini at San
Francisco. They will be compelled by
economic necessity to keep fleets of
great vessels to feed their lines at
this end, and to carry to China and
Japan the products of the Middle
West. If these fleets are permitted
to use the Panama canal, the same
economic necessity will compel them
to combine against independent ship
ping, and with the railroads willing to
defray operating losses, drive this In
dependent shipping out Of the coast
forecast. traftic.'
'As the Panama canal bill stands at
this writing, in the form in which 1t
was reported back by the Senate COM
nittee, it provides that railroad-con-
trolled ship may use the canal, pro-
vided half her cargo is going to or
coming from a foreign port. The in
sertion of this proviso was merely
temporary compromise. The position
OF the chamber has been that no rail-
road-owned or controlled vessel should
be permitted to use the canal at all
in the coastwise trade, and that IS
still its position"
$3.50
Not New Fight.
There is nothing new about this
fight, except its form. 1t is part of the
cid railroad opposition to any Panama
canal at allan opposition that for at
least thirty years has been unremit-i
ting in vigilance and astonishingly
clever in device. Never avowing its
origin or showing its hand, it sought,
by means of misleading statistics in
editorials and magazine articles to
make the people believe there was no
use digging the Panama canal, that III
the Panama canal we're to be dug it
ought to be dug at Nicaragua, and If
a Nicaragua, then Panama was bet-l
ter; that if it were dug nobody would
use it, because it would still be short
er from New York to Hongkong by
way of Suez; and finally If the Gov
eminent in its unwisdom was bound
to dig it, it should be sea-level canal
lin other words one that couldn't be