New-York tribune., 1912-08-16
PANAMA BILL DEFECTS.

ul3n canal tOu> was uouot4V7o 49,
worst feature Of the Panama bill as Il
was passed by the Senate. and IN the
conference committees elimination Of
that iniQuitous provision there j. cause
for hearty qualification 10 al who
value the reputation and good faith NJ
the United states. The exemption OF
domestic coastwise shipping from tolls,
which is retained in the bill. IS g dif-
fercnt matter and there Is some
GROUND for thinking that it is not. ar
east ID spirit. q violation Of the treaty
and viii not be protested as such.
Nevertheless. II IS q subject Of serious
dispute. and IS 90 involved in conflict
ine consideration Of both foreign and
domestic policy that the prudence or
enactinc il 80 summariIv is by no
means established. Cerrainlv II the
provision is 20 be administered with
out offence and without breach OF faith
there vii have 10 bc a much stricrer
definition Of c0astwise commerce than
D. contained I'm the pending bill.
Another feature cf the bill which
has been retained. and which also in
wolves both foreign relations and do
mestic policy. is likewise % such du-
biouS prOprieTy Is 10 provoke a wish
that il might have more deliberate and
judicial consideration. That is the sec
ton excluding from the canal vessels
owned by railroad companies. and also
forbiddinS railroad companies. except
with the consent OF the Interstate
Commerce Con- mission. 20 have any
interest whatsoever IN lines Of trans
portation on any Of the waters OF the
United States. The motive iS not clear
and il probably somewhat complex.
rejecting the old notion that all rail
roads We're essentially hostile 10 the
canal. 4 fear that use Of the canal by
railroad owned vessels would give
them undue advantage over all other
carriers and perhaps on the part o.
some an impulsive and unreasoning
whim 10 the effect that the great
transportation companies are always
mt subjects FOR batting Its purpose
may be the laUdable one Of assuring
untrammelled competition in inter
coastal commerce and Of preventing
monopoly or undue advantage bat
there Is grave reason for dnubting
both the wisdom and the justice Of
the proposal in question
II has not hitherto been regarded as
q penal offence for q single trans
portatiOn company 10 own both ships
and railroads. even on parallel lines.
L. not q few cases II il practically
necessary for railroad companies 70
own and operate boat lines 20 sup
piement and to complete the service Of
their land lines. II is true that the
prohibition in This bill would nOminallv
apply only 70 cases In which there IS
o. might be competition between the
land and water lines in question: but
IN fact and practice the question Of
possible competition is all but impos-
sible TO determine with convincing &C
curacy. and there is reason 70 fear that
IN this case an attempt 20 apply the
prohibition might have 2 result exact
" contrary 70 its intent disorganiZing
commerce and sitting instead Of prO-
noting competition. without affOrdiug
any cOmpensating advantages.
With the proposition that railroads
should not be permitted 10 monopolize
the traffic OF the canal or 70 use il in
such a way a. 70 destroy competition
or even 20 secure for themselves
special advantages over competitors we
are in hearty accord. But il certainly
should be possible 70 discriminate be
tween regulation and prohibition To
argue thar railroad owned ships must
be excluded altogether from the canal.
because Il We admitted them 70 il we
could not subject them 70 effective
control for the prevention Of miscon-
duct. would be dismal and discredit-
able confession Of impotence. The
wiser. braver and more just course
would seem 10 be 10 admit ali shipping
70 the canal on equal terms. and then
strictly TO enforce those terms. We
cannot believe that the antitrust laws
which are now in force would De
found inadequate 70 holding the bal
ance true between independent ship
ping lines and those owned by rail
roads.
The subject should not be dismissed
without another expression OF earnest
disapproval of the practice Of impcs-
ing riders" upon bills. or Of eonbin-
ing unrelated matters in a single
enactment This purports 70 be a bill
for the administration OF the Canal
Zone and the regulation and control OF
the Panama Canal. Yet there have
been injected into il extraneOus mat
ters. such as the general regulation Of
commerce on Long Island SCUM. the
Hudson River and the Great Lakes,
the admission Of foreign built ships
10 American registry and the free Inn
portatiOn OF shipbuilding material.
These propositions may be praise
worthy. though there is by no means
general agreement 20 that effect. But,
good or bad. they have no more place
in she Panana Cannl biz than rules
for the Presidential succession would