El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1913-02-15

going on in congress with ref
erence to the question Of constituting
/ the Hay-Pauncefote treaty has divided
that body into two general camps
those who think that the neutrality Of
the canal as relates to tolls includes
I the United States, on the one hand, and
those who think that it excludes US,
I on the other. There are many who
| feel that it applies to the United
/ States on general shipping, but does
| not apply to US on cOaStWise traffic.
{ The line Of cleavage is, in a general
/ way. between those who believe in ship
| subsidies and those who do not, al
4 though, Of course, there are exceptions
! to this statement
! But, as a rule, those who oppose ship
subsidies are to be found among those
/ who oppose the remission Of tolls to
/ American cOastWise ships on the
! ground that it cOntravenes the treaty.
! On the other hand, those who are for
| subsidies are, for the most part, IN
| favor Of the remission Of tolls to
| American coastwise ships, and argue
/ that such an act does not constitute a
: violation Of the Hay-PaUncefOte treaty.
| There are those, however. who favor
] subsidies in our foreign going shipping
! and none on our coastwise shipping.
Party lines are not followed. The
| Democratic committee that drafted the
I original tolls bill refused to exempt
/ coastwise traffic and that provision IN
the form Of the DOremus amendment
was voted on in the house and agreed
10 by the senate, the vote in both
houses being nOn-partisan but largely
Republican. On the very day presid ant
Taft signed the bill, representative
Sims, OF Tennessee, a Democrat, intro
duced a bill to repeal the cOaStWise I
exemption, and the same bill was later
introduced in the senate by senator
Root, Of New York, a Republican. /
Senator O'GOrman, Of New York, a
Democrat, is the principal defender Of Z
the present law in the upper house
and representative Mann, the Repub- /
lican leader, is one of its chief cham
piOns in the house.
Another Angle.
There is another angle to the cOntro- |
Tersy that has led some men to vote n /
favor Of free tolls to American coast /
wise ships the while they have been |
opposed to subsidies. That relates to i
the effect Of tolls on transcontinental 4
freight rates They believe that the /
addition Of tolls means just that much I
more IeeWay the railroads will have /
in competing with the coast-tO-coast
shipping. They believe that when a
toll Of Sl-20 net register ton is levied
It VIII give the railroads the oppor-
tunity to raise their rates by just that {
much This idea, on the other hand, is
repudiated by other men in congress. I
They insist that S120 a net register
ton means an average Of about so cents
a ton on actual cargo, and that fifty
cents a ton in tolls will not help the
railroads to compete on much shipping, !
and that on the other hand, its alb
Sence viii not lower q single price to |
the ultimate consumer. They contend
that the shipping companies will sim
ply pocket the difference, a difference
that ought either reach the ultimate
consumer or the Golfers Of the canal
It is asserted by Senator Root that If
We have our coastwise traffic England
also has hers, and that to exempt our
coastWlse shipping from tolls and not
to exempt that Of England and other |
countries is a violation Of the treaty. |
He reminds the country that we once /
had the shoe on the other foot, and |
that then we protected so vehemently /
that Canada receded from its position.
Under the treaty Of 1871, which gave
TO the shipOWners Of Canada and the |
United States equal treatment in the /
canals of the two countries, Canada. /
Whicht had fixed g toll Of 20 cents a !
ton on freight RENTED IS cents a ton I ,
on all freight destined to Montreal and
beyond, thus leaving but two cents a
ton on Canadian coastwise shipping,
while charging the full 20 cents on
American shipping. President CIeve-
land figuratively jumped on Canada /
with both feet, saying in message to
congress that for Canada to promise
equality and then in practice make it
conditional upon our vessels doing a ] ,
Canadian business instead Of their own,
is to fulfil a promise with a shadow Of
performance.
EnEIand's Treaty Violation.
1t is pointed out that If England for
a moment thought that the words,
British vessels or vessels of the !
United States" applied to coastwise
she would not have fIagrantly ,
violated the treaty of 1915 by making
different charges for the two classes
Of vessels. The claim is made, there
fore, by those who controvert the
British view Of the Panama tolls con-
troversy, that if the treaty Of 1915,
still in force, does not prevent England
from discriminating in favor Of its ,
cOastwise trade, then certainly neither !
does the Hay-PauncefOte treaty pre-
vent US from discriminating in favor
Of our coastwise trade.
Summing up this phase OF the mat
ter it viii be seen that Canada once
attempted 10 discriminate in favor Cf
its cOastwise trade and the United
States protested. England. in the face
Of its general shipping treaty with the
United States, has, without a protest |
from US, Disseminated in favor Of its !
sOastwise trade for years on end. Now
we come to do the same at Panama,
and England protests. Is England |
wrong in giving her cOastwise ships Z
better rates in her ports than are given (
20 American ships, ID the face Of the
reatment2 It is claimed that upon the !
answer to that question hinges the Z
answer at Panama I
1t is argued by those who feel that I :
We have no right to exempt our coast
wise traffic from toll charges that this :
-erv question was brought up in the
enate when the Hay-Pauncefote treaty {
vas Dendfng Senator Bard then In
reduced an amendment to the treaty | {
providing that ''the United States re-
erves the right in the regulation and 7
MANAGEMENT Of the canal to discr1mi-
arc in respect 10 the charges Of traf-
fc in favor Of vessels owned by .tS- Z
citizens engaged in the coastwise
rade." The senate rejected this amend Z
mont and the advocates of the British 7
Jew assert that it is proof positive a
hat when the senate ratified the ]
reaty there was no DOUBT IN any mlnu ]
hat its terms included cOastWise traf- I
ic The rejOinder is made by those
Who oppose the British view that the Q
efusal Of the senate to adopt the Bara i
mendment was not due to the belief e
# the senate that the treaty should
include coastwise shipping, but rather
because such an exemption went with
ut saying and that the senate deemed n
UGH a declaration wholly unnecessary. {
O'GOrmnn's Contention. b
Senator O'GOrman contends that tire r
lr.s~ I !