The Washington times., 1912-07-22
Interior States Show
Indifference to Bill
For Lower Canal Tolls

The indifference of the interior to the
prospective opening of the Panama
canal is one of the chief factors enter
ing into the consideration of the Panama
bill which is now pending before the
Senate.
One of the most important facts the
discussion in the Senate and House has
thus far brought out is that in reality
the great interior Of the country is ex-
pecting little commercial benefit from
the canal.
This explains why It is there Is not
stronger insistence on free tolls through
the canal for American ships in the
coastwise trade. If the members Of
Senate and House who come from in
terror cities and localities believed the
canal would be the means of reducing
freight rates at interior points or on
interior business, and could figure free
tolls to American ships in the coastwise
business would cut interior freights, the
British protest against free tolls to
American ships would not amount to
the snap of finger.
See No Benefit.
But the members from the interior for
the most part are not convinced the
Interior is going to get any. benefit out
OF the canal. They are not being stirred
UP by constituents who believe they are
going to be helped by the canal in the
way of lower freights.
Only here and there may be found a
member of the Senate or House from
the interior who is eager for free tolls
because he thinks lower freight rates
to the interior will result. The position
Of most Of the interior members
whether in Senate or House, is this:
The canal has cost nearly a half
billion. 1t will cost good round sum
each year to maintain It. 1t will do the
interior no good. 1t will be a big bene-
Mt to the Atlantic and Pacific and
Gulf coasts if tolls are free or low, for
It will compel lower transcontinental
freight rates. What Is the use of the
interior States helping bear the burden
Of keeping up the canal. after helping
to build 1t, for the sake of benefiting
the coast regions? Why not charge
enough in tolls to maintain the properly
and operate It?
Few Different.
A few interior members Of Senate
and House take a different view, and
insist that II ftransconHnentaf freights
are lowered. such lowering will be re-
fiected in lower interior rates. But this
Is not the general view of the interior
statesmen. They look on the free tolls
question as largely question of the
coast versus the interior, and consider
the granting of free tolls to ships in
granting Of subsidy by the central part
Of the country to the interests engaged
in business along the coast, whether At
lantic, Pacific or Gulf. and SO are not
enamored of 1t.
Some of the members of the Senate
and House in the Great Lakes region,
in fact most of them, are for free
tolls to American ships in the coast
wise business. They are for 1t sub
stantially on the same grounds as are
the representatives of the coast re-
gfons.
The result is that while the war on
free tolls, which was waged unsuc-
cessfully in the House, and which Is
being waged in the Senate, is largely
tinental railroads against the canal,
this is only partially true.
Would Hurry Action.
If the interior members and their
constituencies were not Indifferent to
q large extent on the theory they
will get no benefit out of the canal,
the opposition to free tolls would have
short shrift
Another factor in the situation,
which lessons materially the interest
in free tolls, is the widespread belief
In Congress that the Interstate Com
merce Commission is going to bring
about a zone system of freight rates.
1t Is argued the commission Is more
and more reaching the point where 1t
rates In this country and to regulate
capitalization of railroads, and that
the more thoroughly 1t does this, the
less useful will water competition,
via the canal be as a regulator of the
rates of the railroads.