The Washington herald., 1914-04-06

say then that We have surrendered to
/ Great Britain and other nations the con-
| troll OF our ports?
"Or. because our ships are permitted
the same privileges as British ships in
English ports. shall we say that Great
Britain has surrendered to the United
States control OF her own ports? That
answers the ridiculous charge that we
are surrending to Great Britain.
! Now. what do We find when we con-
slider the economic phase OF the situation?
| In the first place, We cannot say
that we are helping the citizens OF the
/ United States hen we exempt Ameri
can-owned vessels engaged in the coast
wise trade from the payment of tolls
( in the canal We do not own the ships.
| They are owned by corporations. the
wealthiest corporations in the country,
corporations best in a position to pay
! the tolls. The coastwise trade ship
owners are a small and compact circle.
| They make their rates to suit one au-
other. they have no competition II they
enter the same ports they arrange their
schedules so as not to interfere with
/ one another. There Is no competition.
shipping Interests Helped.
Now. what have We done for the
| coastwise shipping interests already? We
coastwIse commerce. by prohibiting from
our ports foreign vessels engaged in the
coastwise trade OF the United States.
Further. We prohibit foreign-built ves-
sells. though American-owned, from en-
gaging in the coastwise trade Of the
United States. We have made them
wealthy, this small circle OF owners and
builders with common interest
What does the canal do for them?
1t cuts down their shipping cost by
more than $3.50 ton. even II they are
required to pay tolls. 1t cuts down their
sailing time by one half. II opens up new
nelds of commerce to them. giving them
every opportunity TO double their business
or more. II throws into their lap mil
lions of tons OF business now carried by
the transcontnental railroads
IF We exempt them from tolls. We will
deprive the Treasury Of the United States
of about 31.5OO.OO0 a year which they
would contribute toward the maintenance
Of the canal. That money must come
directly from the Federal treasury, for
no reasonable man can say that We could
make that amount a charge upon other
nations of the world without fagrantly
violating the Hay-Pauncefote treaty.
Therefore, the American people
would he paying TO this select circle
of shipowners and shIpbuIIders 81 I.5OO,-
900 q year out of their pockets, after
already having Insured them for years
past an absolute monopoly of our
coastwfse trade.
Even il we concede that the shippers
will be benefited along with the builders
and owners. and bunch the three inter-
ests together. how large a part Of the
whole United States would they make?
Consumer Not Affected.
Il do not think 1t can reasonably be
that the difference in freight
charges which would result from free
tolls ever would be taken from the cost
or gooos to the consumer. The charge
now fixed by law for other vessels
81. 2O.5-ls based on a nautical measure |
ment. The charge on the actual cargo /
wild be about s. cents per ton. Does any !
one think for a minute that the con- |
sumner ever will feel the difference Ia
merchandise brought through the canal? !
TAKE another argument that II be- .
Ing adNanced-that the tolls question
Will affect railroad freight rates. In !
the first place, railroad rates are hxed
by the Interstate Commerce CommIs-
SION And now q great many people
here and throughout the country sre
crying that the railroads are not per-
mitted TO charge enough to sustain
them, and that they should have the =
VIII the canal. then. have TO do with
railroad rates.
Further, the division Of expert opin-
ion. the differences between International
law experts both here and abroad As TO
whether the tolls exemption in any form
would be violation OF the treaty. is 50
marked. that We could not refuse to ar
bitrate the question II We fail to repeal
The free tolls clause Now. why should
We arbitrate one phase OF a question
when that question already has been
disposed of beyond Cavil on another
phase? As there is no question but that
The exemption is against the best eco
nomic interests of the country. why
should We cavil as TO whether We have
The right to go against our best in
.erests? The two wrongs would not
make right would they:
Has No Fear of Criticism.
No. the thing is so clear that there
: not the least fear in my mind either
Is 10 the Senate vote or the ultimate
attitude Of the country on il. l am COM
ng up for election this fall under the
lew primary law. have no fear as to
What my constituents will think. At a
Meeting OF the Democratic State central
committee of Georgia yesterday the ques-
ion was brought up. There were just
even votes against uphOIding the Presi-
ent's hand in the matter
III ! have one cause for regret as to
ny own course. it is because I voted ,
n favor of free tolls when the clause
vas debated in the Senate | favored a {
then. and had several amend /
nents written into the clause, and finally :
oted for it when l could not get it the
Eay / wanted it, {
Conditions have changed since then. !
have changed, and We are {