The Washington herald., 1914-04-14
PANAMA CANAL TOLLS.
Writer Attacks the Chief Contention
in Speaker Clark's Speech.

that body. the Hon. Champ Clark. cast
one pebble into the sea OF debate which,
mas sent forth ripple that has already
disastrously affected certain unstable
Dodes, notably, one or two menbers Of
the United States Senate
ne quoted one paragraph from an opin-
ion OF the Supreme Court delivered bvi
MI chief Justice White in deciding tbsl
case OF Olsen VS.. Smith Q95 L. s gen
IN support or the contention that the
exemption clause under debate was not
IN contraVention of the treaty by the
terms OF which ships of all nations,
were guaranteed the use OF the Panama
Canal upon equal terms II is undoubt
edly true that a like guarantee has been
given oy this country in regard To Brit.
ish vessels entering United States ports
under another treaty with Great Britain.
but, 1t was held In the case cited by Nr
clark that such a provision did not pre-
vent the authorities OF the State Of
Texas. though concededIy bound by the
treaties Of the Federal government. from
imposing certain penalties upon vessels
In the foreign trade shipping entering
! Ie&an ports from which local or coast
wise shipping was exempted.
| The quotation was easily the best part
OF Mr.. Clark's speech. inasmuch as il
was the only part OF a very able and
dignihed effort that had any immediate
| or potential power of conversion. Its
enect, pronounced enough at the moment
mas since ben augmented by the unac-
countable way 1t has been passed over
| in silence by the friends Of REPEAL.
| Let us approach this case of Olsen. vs.
smith, without any undue fear or tremb-
ling. and see II il really does. by a parity
OF reasoning or sound legal analogies,
TWIST the Hay-PauncefOte treaty into
such shape as to be unrecognizable ex-
cept to those who do not wish TO be
bound BY its obligations
The case arose from these facts. Yp
1885 the legislative mind of the state Of
Texas occupied Itself for a time with the
affairs OF its chief port-Galveston. II
recognized these conditions: First, ves-
sells entering the port Of Galveston are
OF two classes consisting, respectively,
OF (a) vessels that did not as a class re-
quire the aid Of a pilot in passing and
repassing the bar OF the harbor, and
tb), vessels that as a class would re-
quire extraneous aid OF that character
under those conditions. Second. that in
order to preserve and increase the COM
mercial activity Of Galveston pilots
should be in attendance as and when re-
quired- Third, if certain vessels in class
tb) were allowed TO escape the payment
OF pilotage charges, the charges levied
upon other vessels Of the same class
would be either So high as TO close the
port to those who could not secure ex-
emption. or. and il amounts TO the same
thing, pilots would not enter into en-
plOyment in the port % Galveston
To meet these conditions the Texas
legislature enacted into law the harbor
bill that was unsuccessfully attacked in
the case under consideration. That law
provided: The rate Of pilotage on any
class Of vessels shall not, in any port
Of this State exceed 81 for each foot Of
water which the vessel at the time Of
plotting draws, and whenever a vessd.
except Of the classes below excepted.
shall decline the services Of a pilot OF
fcred outside the bar and shall enter the
port without the aid Of one. she shall
be liable to the first pilot whose services
she so declined, for the payment of ha'f
pilOtaGe
similar penalty is imposed in like
case upon the same vessels when leaving
port. Now follows the exemption clause:
The following class OF vessels shall
be free from any charge for pilotase
unless for actual service: All vessels
Of twenty tons or under. all vessels %
whatsoever burden owned in the State
OF Texas and registered and licensed N
the district OF Texas when arriving from
OF departing 10 any port OF lIlt ~ltt'
Of Texas and licensed for the Coasting
trade in the district Of Texas when
arriving from or departing 10 any port
in the United States.
Now it is apparent that the vessels
enumerated in this exemption clause.
fall clearly as a class under the divi-
sion CaD mentioned above. As a rule
they will be vessels of light draught and
will be commanded by shippers familiar
with harbor bottom topography and To-
cal current conditions. II was not nee
essary for them as a class that pilots
should be in attendance, when the gen.
eral class condition did not apply. and
a pilot was necessary. that ipso facto.
took the exceptional Texas owned vessel
out of her class and into the class OF
vessels engaged in tFN foreign trade
and she paid part pas IN the stranger
vessels. Thus We was not A
discrimination betv 'lites based
upon any selfisf disCrim-
ination between CI rough
ly by dividing tn - two
divisions one of VIII ~arily
need pIlotage and tn md
then preventing or owe.
ror, by subjectnC a ship f.
in the wrong group To her
pilot charge. The rate of pI.
actually borne by every vesseI
ing a pilot, whether American
eign. or engaged in coast or transoL C
trade is precisely the same. The Supreme
Court held that there was no violation
Of the treaty invoked by plaintiff Vhen
he attacked the Galveston harbor act.
The vessels not included in the ex"mp-
ton clause were for the major part OF
deep draught and navigated hy officers
without local knowledge; II was for them
that the port authorities had to provide
and maintain a pilotage sery!,r CIui-
tably enough a larger charge. for the cost
OF maintainance falls upon this c.ass OF
vessels which made II ner'sSnrv-
1t must be remembered that III" pilot
is not State officer: he draws no pay
from the harbor authorizes. his re-
muneration comes solely from tn. ships
that require. or in this case riGht r"-
quire, in all likelihood. his services In
some cases one vessel would hav" 10 pay
for the benefit of others. II Is precisely
as If a colliery owner made all upcratives
engaged in a hazardous branch Of the in
dustry contribute to secure the residence
at the mine of a surgeon who's" services
would be required by members Of that
class. and made no such requirement. in
the case of-say members Of the ONCE
stan, but made them pay when. and II
the surgeons aid were required.
The Texas Harbor act seemed. to Mr..
Olsen, to bear heavily upon him He had
to pay half pilotaGe charges. though no
actual services were rendered to him.
case more clearly parallel than the Olson
case and the case for examination" Nav
be he has not given his imagination a