Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1914-07-30
SUBSIDIES To
COASTWISE SHIP!
SENATOR STONE CONSIDERED
PANAMA TOLLS EXEMPTIONS
BouNTIEs TO MoNoPoLlEs.
SUPPORTED REPEAL Bill
Asserts American Rights Under Cana
Treaties, but Strongly Opposes
Substituting American Coast
wise Vessels.
SUPPORTED REPEAL Bill

Washington. D. Gin the contest ovo
the repeal OF the canal tolls exemption
act, Just concluded, Senator William
NStone of Missouri was one of the Presl
cents supporters in advocating the repes
bill. In setting forth his reasons for hi
position, Senate Stone said;
I'm 1912, Congress passed what
known as the Panama Canal Adminlstra
ton Act. The general purpose OF thl
act was TO regulate the operation OF thu
international waterway. The act con
tanned q provision exempting America
toastwise vessels from the payment o
tolls for passing through the canal
While this measure was pendlnB DeloE'
Congress in 1872. the government 0
Great Britain protested to u State De
tartment that the exemption of Ameri
can ships from the payment OF tous
while charging tolls against the Nessel
Of other nations, would be lolatlv Q
our treaty obligations, Great Britall
commended that under the so-called hay
Pauncefote treaty, contracted w
The United States and Great Britain TIM
government could not grant preferential
or discriminatory rates TO American snip
without violating our international agree
ment. The question was then very thor
oughly debated in Congress, some hold
ing that the British contention was wei
founded, while others maintained ina
p the DTlltQ States tldu d GIGdI llhLLh AiNV
the treaty to grant lower tolls to Amer
can vessels than might be required q
> other vessels, or to entirely eXemp
, American vessels from the payment 9
any tolls whatsoever. A decided ma1orl
ty i'll both Houses adopted the Ialts
: view, and accordingly enacted the law. &
! 1872, containing the provision eXemptlni
our coastWise shipping from the pay
ment of tolls. Several months ago Presl
dent Wilson delivered q message to Con
b. oros. taking fha ground that the tDlu
exemption clause Of the act OF I'LL
should be repealed, He based his conten
ton on two grounds, first, mat aftof ma
ture reflection and thorough study Of fh'
whole question he had reached the opAn
that the exemption was yfolatiVe o
our treaty with Great Britain, and, sec
ond, that the exemption was IN ltselt 4
! wrong economic policy and in contraVen
tinu of the general policy OF TINS countr1
with respect to granting subsidies to tb'
r1erchalt marine. This subject pfoYoNet
n long aid somewhat heated discussion
in Co1gecse. On the tariff and currenc!
bills thu f'en16cfats IN Roth HOUSES WEI
united. bai on the tolls question tht
Drmocrnfs in both Houses, as We'll al
the Republicans aqa Progresslves,. were
divided. IN fact, Ii was qpt fegarueo .!
treated as a party question q tna1olltl
in both Houses voted to repeat the so
called free tolls provision Of the law, BY
those who voted for repeal We're noF al
influenced by the same consldefaRloHs
Some voted for repeal solely because
4lley believed that the exemption law wal
Zyloigatiy@ ii our solemn internationa
agreement, and not because they Were
opposed TO the idea Of granting ship sub
sides out of tbs public treasury; Otners
voted for repeal solely because they We're
opposed to allowing coaSt#iea shlppms
absolute freedom from all charges fol
using the canal, believing that thar was
a subsidy, and they were opposed 20 tht
posicy of substituting ships. Qthers voice
for repeal on both the gfouhas statsa ~
She President, that the exemption ylolat'
ed che treaty and was also vicious as ar
economic policy. Personally, ] did not be
lieve it violated our treaty with Gfeal
Britain to EXEMPT American ships iron
canal tolls, but / am clear N the bellei
that to exempt ships fsonl the paymen1
OF tolls is the exact equivalent OF col
laecting and then reflnding tRe .I{otss or
in other words, that the exemption IRON
tolls was nothing more nor less than q
subsidy granted at the public expense
/ have always opposed subJidizlns the
merchant marine or any part OF IT, ane
that has long been The consistent ailG
well established doctrine of the Demo
cratic party. It has been so declared II
various national platforms.
Question of Domestic Foley.
A'Tfose who voted against repeating Inc
free tolls provision OF the law maintained
with great Vigor and insistence that the
exemption wag not ViOlative of our treaty
obligations. and that it did not grant q
subsidy such as the Democratic party de-
nOunced. This was not Il party question IT.
1912 nor in 1914, for on both occasions
when 1t was before Congress zach Sen
ator and Member acted outside 81 party
Zines and voted in accordance with ms
w convictions. / voted for the act Of
I912. 1t went hard against the grain fol
me to vote at that time to Exempt oul
coastwise vessels from the payment Of
tolls, because / have regarded the eX-
emption as nothing short of an absolute
subsidy to that part OF our marchahl
vessels doing a coastwlse bpSlness, and
which part / regard as standing least in
need of public aid and least deserving Of
1T. ] then thought, as / have always
thought, that if the government sholle
be inclined to grant snip subsidies II al
IA policy that l do not favor-the su)sl'
dies had better be granted to ships II
the overseas traffic than to vessels en-
gagged in the coastwise traffic, because
under our unwise navigation laws Ameri-
a coastwise vessels enjoy an absolute
monopoly of the enormous n profitable
business upon which they are engaged
Nevertheless, 1 voted for the act of 1912
permitting this subsidy, because at thai
time there WAS an acute issue ketWeer
the United States and Great Britain,
based on the then pending British pro.
test that the United States was without
right under the treaty between the two
nations to discriminate in favor of do
nestle shipping as against foreign ship
Rlli6r III tlAO "a htAH RlDpOolllpl
itself I was opposed to the exemption
but I was opposed to it solely On the
ground Of domestic policy. ! could not
agree that Great Britain had Gny treaty
right to complain If the United States
should determine to allow all or any
American vessels free passage through
the canal. I considered that that was .
question for this government alone, and
i was unwilling to concede that Great
Britain OF any other country had any
right to object. Because of the %llter1a.
tional question involved at that time,
voted as / did. / regarded the interna-
tional question then presented n beine
urged by a foreign government rs more
important than the domestic question o.
subsidy; and I believed that we should
first settle the international question ant
afterwards dispose Of the domestic lues-
ton. have always supposed, however
that after we had answered the conten.
tion Of Great Britain, after we had giyer
our Interpretation Of the treaty. and hat
taken our stand as to the relative rights
OF the w countries under the treaty
that this government could thereafter
on Its own motion, take whatever actor
u pleased with respect to its own policy
thought then, as / think now, that we
could, rightfully deny the claim Of Great
Britain to have any voice with respect
TO our domestic policy, but / did not i'm
hRf1e that In taking that position we
thereby forfeited or impaired orr right tc
adopt whatever domestic policy we
EACnAUAs = iV1h lhp itBHh w GidlSG TIA
policy at any time we pleased, With re-
srect to tolls on American vessels.
Elaborated my views On this subject In
the address made to the Senate on
May 8 last, while the bill was gending
did not entirely agree with the Presi-
DENTS whole contention, but for ire rea.
sons ] have stated | heartily supported
The repeal bill which he had urged 81
Congress. Many Of my good friends II
The Senate, both Democrats and RepiibTi-
pans, did not concur in my views; bnt