New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-07-20
AS TO CoAsTWISE TRADE.

A view concerning Panama Canal
tolls which 1t has been intima'ed the
British note Of protest will be fouHsi
20 contain is directly set forth in the
English press. That is that no objec-
ton might be made to the exemption
of American coastwise commerce from
tolls provided that the exemption
could be strictly confined to such trai-
fic and was not made TO cover the gen
eral foreign trade Of the United States
Thus The Morning Post" of London,
speaking of the proposed exemption OF
call American vessels engaged In the
coastwise trade says:
E Il NAV be said that such a conces-
sion would not affect the shipping of
other countries, since the COasting
trade of the United States is already
reserved by law 10 the American mer-
camille marine But il is easy TO give
a very wide definition TO the term
"coasting trade" At present steam .
or which leaves New York, calls at
South American ports, passes through
the Strait of Magellan and up the
western shores of the continent, end
ing up at San Francisco, is held to be
engaged in COasting trade.
Without entirely accepting our Lon
don contemporary somewhat free ana
easy description Of American COasting
trade, we can here at least recognize
the British conception Of what thar
trade should legitimately be If il IS to
enjoy exemption from canal tolls
namely, traffic in goods Of American
origin and American destination from
one American port 10 another. For eX-
ample. cargo Of lumber from Puget
Sound for Philadelphia, or a cargo OF
machinery from New York for san
Francisco, would be coastwise COM
lnercc. which could not he carried In
other than American vessels and IN
which there could be no competition by
any other country. But a cargo of
lumber from British Columbia brought
to Puget Sound and thence reshlpped
10 New York, or a cargo Of coal from
h Nova Scotia brought to New York
n and thence shipped TO San Fran
cisco. would not be true cOastwise
commerce. because it would not be eX-
clusively domestic and would be in
competition with the commerce of Can
ada, since it could lawfully be carried
from the port Of origin to that Of des-
tinaton IN Canadian as well as Ameri.
can vessels. Similarly, cargo of
American products shipped from New
York to San Francisco. and intended
thence TO be forwarded TO Vancouver
or to Japan, or one Of Californian
goods from San Francisco TO New York
for forwarding to Europe, would not
be domestic and would not be entitled
TO exemption as COastwise trade
There would also be cases In which
cargoes would be mixed, part being do
nestle in origin and destination and
part foreign In either origin or desti-
nation. 1t would cause some work and
trouble to discriminate among these
various classes to exempt some and to
exact tolls on others, but 1t could prob
ably be done.
If this country should adopt the pol
icy of cxempting its coastwise trade
from tolls while making its foreign
commerce pay tolls the same as that
of other lands II would execute that
policy in good faith and would not seek
TO smuggle foreign trade through un-
der the guise Of domestic. But 1t may
not permanently assent TO the PROPOSE
ton that goods Of American origin, in.
tended for American consumption. on
being shipped in American vessels
from one American port TO another, by
way of an American canal, are by
right and OF necessity subject TO the
same tolls that are paid upon the for
eign commerce of this and other ma
lions. And 1t may be doubted If any
other government would undertake Sc
riously TO maintain that proposition.