Now Seek To Delay Canal Bill Debate.

New York Times 100 years ago today, July 17, 1912:
Senators, Impressed by Burton's and Root's Warnings, Fear a Long Debate.
HOUSE AGAINST REBATE PLAN
Representative Moore Suggests Asking England and Germany to Help Pay the Canal Expense.
Special to The New York Times.
    WASHINGTON, July 16.— The warning given yesterday by Senators Hoot and Burton of the international complications that are certain to arise if a law is enacted granting American ships free passage through the Panama Canal had its effect to-day. Until those Senators spoke feeling was strong for the immediate passage of the bill as amended by the Senate committee. To-day a movement is on foot to postpone consideration of the question of tolls and all other debatable points until next session.
    This movement crystallizes around a joint resolution which Judge Adamson of Georgia, Chairman of the House Committee on Inter-State and Foreign Commerce, has long contemplated. This would give the President wide discretionary powers in opening the canal, so as to obviate the necessity for detailed legislation now. If Congress should take up the subject with expedition in the short session, this resolution might then be supplemented by legislation which now threatens prolonged debate in the Senate with the prospect of ultimate disagreement with the House.
    The Senate propositions, as embodied in the committee amendment for free tolls, are no different from the measure passed in the House. But in the face of Mr. Root's warning as to the damages that might be levied in case, after years of deliberation at The Hague, the question raised by Great Britain should be decided against us, it is almost certain that if the Senate went ahead now, a provision for collecting tolls on American ships, and then refunding them, would be adopted, instead of permitting free passage as first proposed.
    To this substitute, which will be no more satisfactory to Great Britain than the pending amendment, the House is opposed. The House Democrats are willing to remove charges on American bottoms, but the party objection to ship subsidies prevents them from allowing this exemption to be accomplished in a way that seems to sanction subsidies, and might be used as an argument for extending the system to transatlantic lines.
    Fear of prolonged debate seems to be the chief factor in promoting delay in the Senate. The serious questions presented yesterday by Senators Root and Burton can only be considered in a long debate, and the temper of both houses now is to shelve everything possible and bring the session to an end. The fight for free tolls could then be renewed without prejudice in the Winter.
    Senator Burton said to-day that in the face of the crowded condition of the calendar and the delay inevitable from consideration of appropriation bills it is unlikely that even the shipping interests behind the no-toll provision would urge immediate action.
    Two novel propositions were advanced to-day by Representative J. Hampton Moore of Pennsylvania relative to the Panama Canal situation. Declaring it the "height of folly" for the United States to pay the cost of the canal for the benefit of Great Britain and Germany, Mr. Moore would by joint resolution direct the President to negotiate with Great Britain and other nations with a view to get them to help pay the cost of construction and maintenance of the canal. He also introduced a bill to create a Panama Canal trade commission to inquire into the possibilities and advantages of the canal for fostering trade with South and Central American countries.
    "Thus far," he said, we have done nothing but spend money on the canal and glorify our achievements. We have made no move to prepare ourselves for the commercial or trade advantages we expect to derive from the canal. Great Britain and Germany have the advantage of us in South and Central American markets, and it is probable that the use of the canal by foreign nations will give them a decided lead over American merchants.
    "As to the use of the canal, I have contended that it is commercial and not military. If we neutralize the canal we would save the expense of a military establishment there, and if it is to be a commercial enterprise of greater advantage to Great Britain, and Germany than it is to the United States it seems the height of folly for us to pay the bill for their benefit. Great Britain has us tied up by treaty obligations. If Great Britain has as much right to the use of the canal as we have, it is not unfair to ask Great Britain to pay part of the expense of construction and maintenance."
    Mr. Moore's Panama Canal trade commission bill provides for a commission of seven, consisting of the Secretaries of Agriculture and Commerce and Labor and five representatives of American trade or industrial bodies.