Evening journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1888-1932, 1914-06-04

objection could be talSenn
IN the case of Olsen against smith
decided in 1905 md reported in on,
hundred and ninety.ffth United States
532, the supreme Court of the United
States has sustained state law that
exempted eoast wise vessels from pay
ment Of pilotage
The syllabus OF that case is as fol
lows:
"A state pilotage law subiecting an
vessels, domestic and foreign. engaged
in foreign trade to pilotage regulation,
but which eXempts, pursuant to law
coastwisc steam vessels OF the United
\ States, Is not in conflict with provisions
in the treaty between the United States
and Great Britain to the effect that
British vessels shall not be subject to
any higher or other charges than YES
sells OF the United States
Mr.. Justice White, delivering the
opinion Of the court. said:
Nor is there merit in the contention
that, as the vessel in question was a
British vessel coming from foreign
port, the state laws concerning plotage
are IN conflict with a treaty between
Great Britain and the United States,
providing that no higher or other du-
ties or charges shall be imposed in any
ports OF the United States ON British
vessels than those payable in the same
ports by vessels Of the United States.
| Neither the exemption Of coastwise
steam vessels from pilotage, resulting
from the law Of the United States, nor
any lawful exemption OF coastwise ves-
sells created by the state law, concerns
vessels in the foreign trade, and, there
fore, any such exemptions do not ope,
rate 70 produce discrimination
against British vessels engaged in for
eign trade and in favor Of vessels Of
4 the United States in such trade"
Until recently it was generally be-
lieved, in this country, that we had the
right to exempt vessels of commerce
engaged in the eoastwise trade OF the
4 United States from payment of tolls.
But few statesmen thought otherwise.
In 1912 both the Democratic party
and the Progressive party in their plat
forms, declared in favor Of the tolls
exemption.
Less than two years ago both Houses
of Congress and the President believed
we had that right when the tolls.ex-
I eWDIlQn law WIS tHeElNN.
President Taft then saidi
"After full examination Of the Hay
Pauncefote treaty and OF the treaty
which preceded it | feel confident that
the exemption Of the coastwise vessels
of the United States from tolls and the
/ imposition of tolls on vessels OF all
nations engaged in the foreign trade is
not violation Of the Hay -Pauncefote
treaty"
Tolls exemption has been the policy
Of our government for many years.
i The law establishing tolls exemption
BY the government was enacted IN 1884
and is as follows:
"That no tolls or operating charges
whatsoever shall be levied or collected
upon any vessel or vessels, dredges, 81
other passing water craft through any
canal or other work for the improve
ment Of navigation belonging 70 tn
United States
The contention that the tolls cxemp
tion is a mistaken economic policy il
based upon two grounds: First, the tolli
exemption would benefit a shipping mo
nopoly instead of beneiiting the people
and, second, the tolls exemption is d
subsidy.
cannot agree that the tolls exemp.
ton is mistaken economic policy
Neither do ! admit that the tolls exemp-
ton would benefit a shipping monopoly
instead of benehting the people.
If you admit this proposition to be
true. you admit that our Democratic
administration is incompetent to sup.
press monopolies. / will make no such
admission. | believe this administration
can and will suppress and destroy mo-
nopoles.
The law already prohibits the use Of
the canal to vessels violating the anti
trust laws and vessels owned by com
peting railroad companies. This law is
as follows:
"From and after the lst day Of July,
1914, it shall be unlawful for any rail-
road company or other carrier subject
: to the act to regulate commerce to own,
lease, operate, control, or have any in
terest whatsoever Thy stock ownership
or otherwise, either directly, indirectly,
through any holding company, or by
stockholders or directors in common, or
I in any other mannerl in any common
carrier BY water operated through the
Panama Canal or elsewhere with which
does or may compete for traffic OF any
vessel carrying freight OF passengers
upon said water route or elsewhere with
which said railroad or other carrier
aforesaid does or may compete for traf-
iic; and in case Of the violation Of this
provision each day in which such viola
tion continues shall be deemed a sepa-
rate offense.
mo vessel permitted to engage in the
coastwise or foreign trade Of the United
States shall be permitted to enter or
pass through said canal ii such ship is
owned, chartered, operated or controlled
by any person or company which is
doing business in violation Of the provi-
sions Of the act Of Congress approved
July 2, 1890, entitled, AN act to protect
trade and commerce against unlawful
restraints and monopolies,' or the pro-
visions of sections 70 to II, both in
elusive, Of an act approved August 81,
1894, entitled, AN act to reduce taxa
ton, to provide revenue for the govern
ment, and for other purposes or the
provisions OF any other act of Congress
amending or experimenting the said
act of July 2, 1890, commonly known as
the Sherman Antitrust Act, and amend
ments thereto, or said sections OF the
act OF August 81 1894. The question OF
fact may be determined by the judg-
ment of any court of the United States
of competent jurisdiction in any cause
pending before it to which the owners
or operators Of such ship are parties.
Suit may be brought by any shipper OF
by the Attorney General OF the United