The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-04-17
THE CANAL AND SUBSIDIES.

It is favorite position, taken
quite generally by Democratic writer's
and speakers, that subsidies for Ameri-
can ships are, if not unconstitutional,
at least inadvisa BILE, wasteful, mex
pedient. and wrong from the stand
point of the general public interests,
as favoring one particular class Of bust
ness over other classes. There is no
reason. say these writer's and speak
,crs, why persons engaged in the Amer
lean shipping trade should be favored
by the Government through bounties
any moro than that other interests
should be favored in like manner
Lewis Nixon has recently revived
this discussion in connection with the
exemption of Panama canal tolls to
American coastwise shipping. He
argues that free tolls for American
coastwse shipping will not benefit the
American people, and in addition this
would be q violation Of our treaty OBJ
legations; and so Mr.. Nixon calls
for the repeal of that exemption, and
is strongly opposed to any subsidies
of any kind for American shipping.
He holds that this exemption
which the law now provides IN
favor Of American coastwise ship
ping through the release OF that
shipping from the payment of Panama
canal tolls, is practically a subsidy,
that it is wrong in principle, and that
it involves bad faith on the part of
this Government under its treaty stipu-
latious with Great Britain.
Accordingly, Mr.. Nixon argues for
the restoration of "the Constitutional
regulation OF commerce. in the form
of discriminating duties and differen-
tial tonnage taxes. He demands the re.
peal Of the free,ship provision Of the
Panama canal act and urges besides
that free tolls be extended in the for
eign as well as the coasting trade on
the Panama canal. And he favors ga
surtax, for bond retirement Of so cents
per ton on every vessel passing
through the canal engaged in indirect
trade, regardless Of flag That is,
he thinks that the so cents ton would
pay all running expenses of the canal
and also provide sinking fund for the
retirement of the Panama canal bonds
In this he is opposed TO all expert
opinion on the subject.
Mr.. Nixon recalls that "under the
influence of Jefferson and Madison the
United States in the early DAYS pre-
ferred its own vessels by discriminate
ing duties and dffercntial tonnage
taxes in their favor" Closing sight of
our treaties forbidding this, and Of for
eign rights now being urged in Wash
ington,) and he evidently relies upon
return TO this old system for the re-
Vival Of American deep-sea freightage
in addition to the advantage derived
from the exclusive control of the coast
wise trade. In this he would distinctly
repudiate the idea that the Panama
canal trade is coastwise trade, which is
hardly just position to take, since the
coastwise trade vessels are at liberty
TO go beyond the three-mile coast limit
and usually do 90 beyond it, and it is
no great stretch Of usage and custom
TO consider the Panama canal as within
the coastwise trade limits of the
United States, since the canal zone is
explicitly within our jurisdiction.
But Mr.. Nixon, like all others who
take the view that discriminating Gus
toms dpties in favor of American
shippingsis a specific for the building
up Of the American merchant marine,