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

IAAAA u OOLD
SAN FRANCISCO. July 1.-THE
! opposition Of the Chamber of Com
nerce 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
i 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.
Two railroads owned In common
csnnot be expected to enter into act
ual competition. nor can the owners
OF a steamship lire be expected actu-
ally to compete with railroad which
/ they also own.
"A railroad having an investment OF
| $500. O00,00 in railway lines and $685.
/; 0C0, 900 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
will arise from the encouragement Of
the building and operation of a suffi-
cient number of ships to carry ade-
quately the tonnage offered, and from
the maintenance of true sea-level
I 1.oro6kc kkafr ffafIocf
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 loss, and thus discourage In
dependent steamships from engaging
| in competition in which they would
be at prohibitiye disadvantage.
IF 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
!, in the position of having to look TO
i the railroads themselyesofor benefits
| which the canal was constructed to
| best0w.
Il !.
'The opposition of the chamber to
/ the use of the Panama canal by yes
sells going coastwise and owned or
controlled by railways was not con-
ceived in a corporation-baiting spirit,
nor was 1t 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 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,
end 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
to-coast traffic"
| 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 a 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 a
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 al
in the coastwise trade, and that Is
still its position"
= -
Not New Fight.
There is nothing new about this
fight, except its form. 1t is part of the
cid railroad opposition to airy Panama
! canal at allan opposition that for at
least thirty years has been unremit.
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 If
the Panama canal were to be dug 1t
ought to be dug at Nicaragua, and il
Nicaragua, then Panama was let
/, 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
i to dig it, it should be sea-level canal
| in other words one that couldn't be