Benefits Of The Panama Canal.

New York Times 100 years ago today, October 6, 1912:

    At last week's meeting of the Chamber of Commerce Mr. Lewis Nixon asked it to indorse the position of the President on the Panama Canal tolls question. Mr. Nixon's resolution declares

that there is no provision in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty that forbids the United States from regulating its commerce by remitting tolls on American ships using the canal.

    The Chamber decided that it would think it over; that is, it referred the resolution to a committee. The Merchants' Association has already committed itself to a policy of discrimination in favor of the coast-wise marine, and the Chamber has taken a step toward doing so. The Chamber has already resolved that all treaty obligations should be observed, but that "rates of toll on vessels engaged in the coastal trade shall not be over one-third the rate charged on vessels engaged in deep sea business, or free if necessary to accomplish the purposes desired." The adoption by the Chamber of Mr. Nixon's resolution would have the effect of placing the Chamber in agreement with the Merchants' Association to the effect that there is no treaty obstacle to such discrimination in favor of our coastwise marine as both bodies favor in principle, although differing in detail.
    Neither body, and no newspaper, nor the United States itself, is competent to decide whether or not there is such treaty obstacle to the gift to the coastwise marine. The President's present position, as expounded to The London Times, is that he favors enabling the Supreme Court to consider the treaty obstacle. But if the Supreme Court should decide as the discriminators desire, the international aspect would remain, and not even unanimity of American opinion and authority would affect the matter at all. At present, therefore, it is well to ask why the United States should do this foolish thing, even if there were no treaty obstacle. We take the liberty of calling it a foolish thing because it is a proposal to give an extremely valuable thing for nothing. The canal is costing our taxpayers a half billion dollars, and it is proposed to give its use to the coastwise marine for nothing if it were right to discriminate in favor of the coastwise marine, surely such discrimination ought to be on terms which would protect the taxpayers' equity. When Mr. Nixon's resolution next comes before the Chamber it would strengthen his argument if he were in position to say that the coastwise interests in return for the subsidy which they ask would engage to give such considerations as are customarily given for subsidies.
    As the matter stands the coastwise interests are asking for a pure gift for their specific profit, and at a cost not measured by the remission of tolls. The gift they ask would be measured in cost by the damage to the railways by uneconomic competition and the loss of the stimulus to commerce by the failure to realize the economic considerations which are part of the argument for the canal's existence at the cost of the taxpayers. As yet no spokesman for the coastwise interests has offered to reduce freight charges by all or any part of the amount of the remitted tolls. Neither have the coastwise interests offered to construct vessels of any given tonnage, nor to make trips of any sustained speed or frequency of service. They have offered to sell their vessels at a scarcity value under conditions of the Government's need, but not at a price based upon cost less depreciation.
    All these are familiar considerations for the granting of public assistance to private interests, and all of them are lacking in this case. To argue that there is no treaty prohibition against the doing of such an unwise thing is far from arguing that the thing ought to be done. The Chamber of Commerce is distinguished rather by its men of business than by its lawyers. A decision of the Chamber that it would be good business to do what is proposed would be more authoritative than a decision that it would be good law. The weakness of Mr. Nixon's position is on both heads, but he argues only on one, and that not the one on which he has strongest claim on public attention.