The Kennewick courier-reporter. [volume] (Kennewick, Wash.) 1914-1938, 1915-04-22
SAYS RAILROADS
FIGHT RIVER WORK
senator Chamberlain Declares
transportation Men are Real
Enemies of Movement

y NAV be with others, there is
man who has no doubts or mis-.
S .;w;rcs as to the source of the oppo-
s;.;on to waterways which has been SC
.,.;nlv in evidence during the last two
sessions of congress. That man is a
native of Missouri who moved to Ore
son became attorney general and Ia
~ governor of the state, and is now
ewing his second term as United
Gates Senator. His name is George
3. Chamberlain.
aThere has been most remarkable
.banee.. says Senator Chamberlain,
ain the course followed by the great
transportation companies of this coun-
nv since the opening of the Panama
..nal. For nearly half century be-
fore that great work was completed
.1orts of the transcontinental rail-
v.ys were directed against every eff
fort that was made to connect the two
oceans by the construction Of the can
Il Their efforts undoubtedly retarded
this work for at least forty years. 1t
= unnecessary to discuss at length
the reasons which led to this oppose
ton. II is sufficient to say that, so
long as it's completion was delayed,
90 long could these great transporta-
tion companies control the rates.
Controlled Coastwise Trade
The methods which were resorted to
10 accomplish this are well known to
the shippers and producers of the
country. They not only controlled the
railways across the Isthmus, but they
controlled the coastwise trade. They
hired space on the coasting steamers,
even though that space was not used,
and fixed rates at such exhorbitant
figures that the products of the coun-
try had to be carried over their rail
lines at any price that the railway
companies saw fit to charge. They
were restrained only by the slow and
tedious processes of the interstate
commerce commission and the courts.
It will be remembered that it took
nearly twenty-five years to reach,
through these processes, final decis-
ion affecting rates to the intermoun-
tain country, and even that decision
has recently been very largely modi-
Aed.
The Panama canal has become an
accomplished fact, and in 1912 an act
governing it's use was placed on the
statute books. This act granted to
American vessels engaged in the coast
wise trade exception from tolls, and
Immediately upon its passage these
same companies put forth their eff
forts to secure the repeal of this ex-
smption clause. In that fight they
were successful, so that American YES
sells engaged in the coastwise trade are
measurably handicapped, for, to the
extent that tolls are charged them at
Panama, to that same extent the rail-
way companies can add to their trans
continental freight rates.
Fighting Waterways
Having lost the fight against canal
construction, but having won a victory
with reference to tolls exemption, their
organized efforts are now being d.
rected against legislation for the i'm
provement of inland waterways. The
purpose of this opposition is too plain
Tor argument. These waterways have
now become active competitors with
the railways and are more powerful
as rate regulators than either the in
terstate commerce commission or the
state commissions can possibly be.
NO objection is being urged against
the Improvement of harbors, where, as
rule, railway companies own and
control all terminal facilities. The
opponents of appropriations for river
Improvement seem to be perfectly
Wiling that any amount of money
snail be expended for these harbor inn
provements, because, in the final an
aiysls, money so expended benefits the
railway corporations.
i am neither prophet nor the son
d 2 prophet, but / predict that there
Will &c in the future thorough or
saaized end well directed efforts to
uelest bills appropriating money for
'ne inlpro' ement of internal water
ways particularly where those water
ways compete with railway transpor-
'atlon. ! know of no better way to
compel the enemies of waterway i'm
ploVement to show the cloven hoof
.nan by placing appropriations for
aroors, which are railway terminals,
one bill and appropriations for in
.ernai waterways, which are COMPETE
,ols OF the railways, in separate bill.
IS safe to say that in the former in
stance there would be little. If any,
opposition; while in the latter the
ngnt against appropriations would