Atlanta Georgian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1912-1939, 1914-03-12

house, You must not put lock that door may to
get in without your consent"
canal FORTIFIED and controlled by the United States
protection doubling the value of our fighting fleet
The canal UNPROTECTED would be great to this
country enabling the fleets of the enemy to quickly from
coast to the other
There danger of with Japan. Every intei
gent citizen knows it.
England not always love she would do she
appreciated gentle character.
England is the of Japan is to the west England
and Japan have each powerful fleets
AND ENGLAND AND JAPAN ARE ALLIES
The treaty between them compes the assistance
Of the other in of
would very comfortable for England and Japan they
SHOULD trouble with the United States AND THE PAN
ANA CANAL WERE NOT FORTIFIED.
England would send her fleets attack from the east and
Japan fleets attack from the west And they
could join and mngle very happily via the Panama Canal
That why canal fortified AND WHY 1T WILL STAY
FORTIFIED.
The citizens object fertilization of the canal also OBJ
ect very reasonable rule that American coaswse ships
shall the canal free Some statesmen who have been made
over angcmanacs declare that disgrace charge for
eign ships and let American ships go free.
AS fact only those American ships engaged in
COASTWISE trade will pay tolls And NO foreign ship
under is allowed engage coastwse trade obe
ton freeing ships from taxation preposerou
For to-day we ask Senators and the President of the United
the United States
coaswse vessels go through the Panama Canal without
ing for the privilege that anything than slight SUB
sIDY?
Do not all European nations substitute THEIR ships when
they choose?
England subsidies her ships may for
transports time of She pays the subsidy in order to
courage the building of ships.
Germany pays very liberal subsidies to her mercantile
The German people taxed millions for this sub
sdy.
Whether you give the form of a subsidy
ship company you permit steamships avoid the pay
ment of certain tolls what is the difference?
No foreign could possibly object to the United
States substituting its coaswise vessels.
If ridiculous and if not unwise for the
United States give up rights and declare itself the wrong
is actually ACTING JUSTLY the Panama situation
could be solved easily
We could say to our coastise shipping
fish, the Germans and angomanc snobs at home object
free tolls your ships We be friendly and satisfy the
DIRECTORS
Therefore your coaswse ships not free through the
Panama Canal although American money built it.
You must pay your tolls like the British and other ships,
when you go through that canal
United States has decided establish subsidy for
all coastw ships passing from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean
through the canal.
And that subsidy will amount to EXACTLY THE
AMOUNT OF THE TOLL THAT 1T COSTS TO GO THROUGH
THE CANAL.
In other words oblige England you pays
go through the American canal But the devil
around the stump we give you subsidy exactly equal the
tax that you pay"
Will any in the declare that England any
other country would have right object the United States
substituting coastwise trade between the United States
coasts?
Certainly not.
Then why object to giving ships effect
small subsidy by freeing them from the canal tolls?
Monroe big enough declare that people of the
United States could manage the north continents of
America is not the nation of to-day big enough manage the
ksSanama Canal?