Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-05-30

ment when the whole people were the
beneficiaries through the cheapenlng
of freight rates and a reduction in the
cost of living Free tolls through the
Canal he said, was on all fours with
good roads, and free inland rivers and
canals.
Senator Ransdell, who is also Presi-
dent of the National Rivers and Har-
bors Congress, devoted himself very
largely to the economic side of the
argument ana gave some striking IL
Illustrations of the economy of water
transportation and the effect Of water
ways in reducing railway rates, as to
which the Panama Canal would be
no exception. He declared that if the
79,71s,s44 tons of freight which passed
the 500 Canal last year had been car
ried at the lowest rate reported, that
of the Virginian Railway. it would
have cost s191, $4,000 more than was
paid by water, and if carried at the
average for all United States railways
tne difference would have been over
$500, 900
Using a specially prepared map to
illustrate his words. he showed the
marked effect of waterways in reduc-
ing railway rates. For instance, to
Mexico. Missouri, 116 miles from st.
Louis, the first class rate is 43 cents
per 100 pounds, while to Cincinnati, 1893
miles the rate is Al cents. Cincinnati
is almost three times as far away but
has a rate two cents less; Cincinnati
is on a river, Mexico is not.
Senator Ransdeifs conclusion was
that free tolls" are not only morally
justifiable but economically sound. and
will result in upbuilding our commerce
and reducing the cost of living, and
should therefore be maintained.
We hope our readers noted the
point which Senator Ransdell brought
out relating to the jurisdiction over
interstate commerce. He denied that
a valid treaty which would take away
from Congress the right to legislate re-
gardins interstate commerce. The
right to regulate commerce is given
by the Constitution exclusively to
Congress. Shall We make a gift of
this right to England? Senator Rams
dell said il was not within the scope
of the treaty-making power, and can
not be made so without an amendment
of the Constitution. Congress cannot
transfer this power. even if it would.
To us this seems an argument i'm
possible to ignore or to overcome. II
the question at issue in the tolls con-
troversy could be submitted to the
Supreme Court, it is certain that the
court would hold that an attempt by
treaty to usurp the rightfui authority
of Congress is invalid and of no effect
The President and the Senate, as the
treaty making power, have no more
right in regulating interstate COM
merce than the House has legal war
rant to make treaty with a foreign
nation. In either case the Supreme
Court would set aside the attempt as
a violation of the Constitution.
The Washington Post, in treating
this aspect of the controversy, said:
1t has already been pointed out that
when Congress exempted coastwise
vessels from canal tolls it reasserted
it's authority to regulate interstate
commerce, and nullified anything in
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty that might
have been construed to the contrary.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly
held that a law enacted subsequent
TO a treaty operates to abrosate the
treatv if the courts are unable to rec
onciie the two.
But Senator Ransdelf does not rest
his case solely upon the ground that
the treaty is invalid if 1t attempts TO
limit the power of Congress over in
terstate commerce. He denies that the
treaty affects coastwise commerce. He
holds that there is no obligation, IN
law or morals, that requires him to
yield.
The economic side of the controversy
was covered thoroughly by Senator
Ransdell, who is perhaps the leading
authority in this country on questions
dealing with waterways. His illustra-
ton of the powerful effect OF water
competition in lowering freight iates
ought to be sufficient to convince any
senator that it would be great mis-
take to destroy the value OF the IA
mama Canal as an instrumentallty IN
lowering freight rates and thereby re-
ducing the cost of living.