The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-03-28

engaged in the eoastwise trade could not he a discrimination against the English slips unless it amounted to a charge for traffic that would be unjust and inequit- able.
 Anderson's Statement
 "In this connection I desire to call to Your attention a statement made by the Hon. Chandler P. Anderson. who was ths counselor for the state department in the Taft administration;
 In reply to the first ohjection-that under the act no tolls are to be levied upon ships engaged in the coastwise trade of the United States-the position taken by the government of the United States was that in view of the fact that no foreign vessels were permitted to engage in the coastwise trade of the United States, an exemption of American ves- sels engaged in that trade was in no sense a discrimination against foreign yes sels long as this exemption was re- stricted to the bona fide coastwise trade. Great Britain has admitted that the Uni ted States is at liberty to grant a sub sidy to it's vessels whether engaged in coastwise or foreign trade, and apparent 1y has admitted in principle that a sub sidy may be granted indirectly by an exemption from the payment of tolls if that should be done without producing an increase in the rate of tolls imposed upon illSll NesseiS. put IL IS COf1IeDutu Dy Great Britain that if any classes of ves- sells. are exempted from tolls in such a way that no receipts from such ships are taken into account in the income of the canal there is no guarantee that the vessels upon which tolls are being levied are not being made to bear more than their fair share of the upkeep.' In mak- ing this contention the British govern ment apparently was under the impress sion that the President, in determining the rate of tolls, would not take into account the tonnage of American coast wise vessels. and therefore that the toll rate would be higher than if these ves- sels were subjected to the payment of tolls That the British government wal under a misapprehension with. regard to this matter has been clearly shown by the reply of the United States, which pointed out that the tolls which would be paid by American coastwse vessels, but for the exemption contained in the act were computed in determining the rata fixed by the President. and the figures are given showing that the estimated net tonnage upon which the tolls fixed in the Presidents proclamation were based in- cluded the tonnage of American coast wise vessels. For these reasons the gov ernment of the United States contended that there had as yet been no dscrlmina- tion. and that there was nothing iu the
 
 intended to discriminate against British vessels either by subjecting them to inl equality of treatment of by imposing upon them unjust and inequitable tolls
 Still an Open Question
 From the foregoing brief outline of the issues and arguments presented in the diplomatic discussion of this con troversy it will be seen that it is still an open question as to whether the two gov
 
 differences with regard to this treaty without resorting to arbitration. Great Britain has proposed arbitration, and the United States has not as yet accepted that suggestion. but it has not refused to do so, having taken the position that the issues between the two countries should first be more clearly defined, and that arbitration at present would be prema- ture. because the controversy has not yet passed beyond the stage when it could profitably be dealt with by diplomatic negotiation Great Britain proposed to arbitrate the question: but the gentleman from Ten nessee (Mr. Sms) proposes to surrender all our rights without d fight. From the statement of MT. Anderson it will be seen that President Taft in fixing the amount of the tolls made an allowance for the exemption from tolls of coastwise vessels, and 1t clearly does not become the British government to contend that our charges discriminate against her shipping or are unjust and negotiable, when we consider that the charges collected at the Suez canal under her management for the year 1911 not only paid the cost of maintenance and operation, but returned a net dividend of over 31 per cent, whereas the charges proposed by us at Panama after paying the cost of maintenance and operation will return us a net dividend of not quite 2 per cent.
 More SepiOus Question '"rhere is a more serious question in- volved in the passage of this bill. "rhe right to discriminate in favor of our ships, the opportunity to encourage