same way as by the English system of measurement, then it could be declared by order in council that the measurement of such ships should be adopted by the British to all intents and purposes the same as their own, levying harbor dues, lighthouse dues, etc. I find by orders in council of the following dates that the measurements of ships belonging to the following nations were adopted to all intents and pur poses by the British Government as equivalent to theirs. The last date of data that I have is 1907. Austria-Hungary, August 19, 1871; Belgium, October 17, 1884; Denmark, November 21. 1895; France, August 10, 1904; Germany, February 22, 1896; Greece, August 14, 1879; Hayti, May 3, 1882; Italy. May 11, 1906; Japan, January 27, 1885; Holland, May 3, 1888; Norway, June 27, 1894; Russia, November 20, 1880; United States, October 3, 1895; Sweden, August 18, 1882. You will see from the foregoing that the leading maritime nations of the world have adopted the Moorsom system of measurement for gross tonnage and the British system of deductions therefrom. Very respectfully, EUGENE T. WILSON, EXHIBIT J. Col. GEORGE W. GOETHALS, ISTHMIAN CANAL COMMISSION, CANAL ZONE, Cristobal, December 21, 1911. Chairman and Chief Engineer, Culebra, Canal Zone. SIR: In the discussion of the Suez Canal as a competitor of the Panama Caral I have called your attention in previous letters to a fact which has been overlooked, that for points east of Colombo the Cape of Good Hope route is a strong competitor with the Suez route. As tramp ships have been built larger and larger this competition has become keener, and has required that the Suez Canal should reduce the rates; in fact, the Suez Canal rates are so based that, taking into consideration the extra cost of insurance and the extra interest charges on cargo by way of Cape of Good Hope, they just meet this competition It is to be understood that what in shipping terms are called "case goods," such as cottons, woolens, general groceries, and general merchandise, are carried by the regular liners outbound from England and the Continent. The cargo is valuable, hence time is an important factor, and the insurance is higher by the Cape of Good Hope than it is by Suez. The principal bulk cargo for tramp steamers bound out from Europe for Colombo and points east is either Cardiff coal or structural iron, plates, billets, etc. In such cases, especially for large ships, unless time is pressing, the charters are usually made "ship's option" to proceed via the Cape or Suez. With a general cargo of, say, Java sugar, Rangoon rice, India linseed, or peanuts or teak, the route coming back would depend untirely upon the rate, the capacity of the ship, the insurance, and the interest charges, taking into consideration the value of the cargo. The owner of the cargo usually favors Suez. I am informed that if a tramp ship a year ago could load out with a cargo of coal to Colombo with freight of about 10/6 per long ton or 2,240 pounds, and could load home with a cargo running generally about 25/ per ship's ton of 40 cubic feet, that the ship would make a good deal of money for her owner. These rates will probably require an addition at the present time, both in and out, of from 2/6 to 3/. In order to compare the Suez and the Cape routes on a voyage to Colombo, I assume a ship of the Median class, which now comes to the port of Colon, and of which three more are now being laid down at Yarmouth this year. The figures are as follows: Distance from Plymouth to Colombo via Cape of Good Hope, miles. Difference, miles___. Speed per day, miles__. Bunker capacity, tons of 2,240 pounds___. Time of passage via Cape of Good Hope, days_. Time of passage via Suez, days.. Freight rate, Plymouth to Colombo, coal at 10/6 Time for loading and discharging, days_. Total time of voyage via Suez, days.- Total time of voyage via Cape of Good Hopa, days_. Daily coal consumption, tons of 2,240 pounds. 10, 500 4, 003 275 982 38.25 24. 25 $2.56 4 28.25 42.25 50 Coal required from Plymouth to Colombo via Cape of Good Hope, tons__ Coal required from Plymouth to Colombo via Suez, tons_ Water, stores, etc., tons... Net carrying capacity via Cape of Good Hope, tons__ Net carrying capacity via Suez, tons__. Total earnings via Cape of Good Hope (6,050×$2.56). Net earnings via Suez, deducting tolls of $6,817.69– 1,900 1,200 175 6, 050 6.750 $15,488.00 $17.280.00 $10. 462. 31 $366.60 $370.40 $394.60 It is assumed in this case that as the outward-bound cargo is coal that the ship would reserve enough space to provide herself with coal from Wales to Colombo. It is assumed that she can obtain a return cargo at least as remunerative as the outward-bound cargo. It will be observed that the difference between the daily net earnings via the Cape of Good Hope and via Suez is only $3.80. Since the difference in distance is about 4,000 miles, we may say that the Suez rate of 7.25 francs, or $1.406, is equivalent to an open-sea distance of 4,000 miles, and that the rate of 6.75 francs, which goes into force on January 1, 1912, will be equivalent to an open-sea distance of 3,724 miles. This estimate, in my opinion, is conservative. I have allowed but two days for loading and two days for discharging, with six hours' stop at Port Said for water, stores, etc. You will observe that as the freight ate increases, since the tolls and the time remain the same, the advantage becomes more and more in favor of Suez. On the same basis as the above, assuming that the ship carries her own coal and was loaded down with cargo that paid double the freight rate, or 21/, equal to $5.12, the average daily earnings by way of Suez would be about $980 and by way of the Cape of Good Hope about $735. As I have said, the Suez rates are adjusted so as to draw the low-class cargo by way of Suez rather than by way of the Cape, and you will see that as the freght rate increases on high-class cargo the advantage is more and more with the Suez route based upon earning capacity of ship alone. It also has the advantage in the matter of insurance on cargo, since it is more of an inland route and also has better weather in the North Indian Ocean than via the Cape. The rate given of 10/6 was the rate actually in force on coal to Colombo last March. It is now about 13/. I have put this discussion in this manner, first, to show the character of the competition east of Colombo, and, second, in order to determine from the figures, which I know to be accurate, what I shall call "the equivalent open-sea distances" for this class of freight. You will see that at the Suez rate of 7.25 francs, equal to $1.406, this distance is just 4,000 miles; at the rate of 6.75 francs, equal to $1.306, the distance is 3,724 miles. I have proposed a rate of 48 cents per ship's ton of 40 cubic feet, which corresponds to a Suez rate of $1.12, which equals 5.83 francs, and this would make the equivalent open-sea distance 3,192 miles. Discounting the above open-sea daily earnings 5 per cent for profit we have a net expense of $348.27 as the opensea daily expense. The sailing time for this ship from Balboa to San Francisco would be 12 days and her coal consumption 600 tons. Assuming that she was carrying a general cargo and would coal both at Port Said and at Colon, for a difference of $1 per ton in the price of coal of the same quality the saving would be $600, and dividing this by $348.27 the equivalent saving in time would be 1.74 days, and multiplying this by 275, the daily distance covered, gives a distance of 472 miles, which is the equivalent distance for a saving of $1 a ton on coal of the same quality between Port Said and Colon. This is computed on a 12-day voyage from Balboa to San Francisco, which is about the same time as from Port Said to Colombo. Dividing 472 by 12, the number of days for the voyage, we have 40. And we may say then that for low-class freight a saving of $1 per ton for coal in a high-grade general merchandise ship of the Median type, carrying low-grade freight, will make a difference of about 40 miles for every day of the voyage. I have cabled London for the price of Cardiff coal at Port Said and will be able to give you more details to-morrow. If you desire to use this data before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, I beg to say that you appreciate and I appreciate that I am not a traffic expert, and make no pretense of being such, but in view of the broad commercial horizon that this department must necessarily have, I have been brought in touch with some phases of the questions that confront us that might possibly be overlooked, and it is more with a view to pointing out what these phases are, in order that they may be fully investigated by a more competent person with facilities for information which we do not possess here, rather than to advocate any particular scale of tolls or to see that my own ideas are adopted. If you do use this data that I have furnished you, kindly explain to the members of the committee my personal attitude in the matter. EUGENE T. WILSON, Subsistence Officer. Very respectfully, EXHIBIT K. CRISTOBAL, December 23, 1911. Col. GEORGE W. GOETHALS, Chairman and Chief Engineer, Culebra, Canal Zone. SIE: On Wednesday I cabled London inquiring the present price of No. 1 Cardiff coal in ship's bunkers at the following ports: Cardiff, Port Said, Aden, Colombo, and Cape Town. I inquired further as to whether the coal was screened or unscreened and the size of the mesh. I have the following reply: "In reply to your cablegram, present price of coal is, per gross ton of 2,240 pounds, Cardiff, 17 shillings 6 pence; Port Said, 26 shillings; Aden, 26 shillings; Colombo, 34 shillings; Cape Town, 40 shillings. All pit screened. Meshes vary seven-eighths of an inch to 14 inches." The above information is thoroughly reliable. to the pound is $6.33 at Port Said. Twenty-six shillings at $4.87 I find that the price for best Welsh coal delivered free-on-board ship under contract made in December, 1909, for the year which expires December 31, 1910, was 22/6, or $5.54, adding 3 pence, or 6 cents, for trimming. The price of same grade of coal in March, 1911, at Port Said was $5.60, and the price to-day is $6.33. You will note a constant increase in the price of this coal; in fact it will never be as cheap as it has been in the past, due to the fact that the Welsh mines have had to shorten their hours of labor. I am informed that they are now on an eight-hour basis and have to work three shifts a day instead of two, as formerly, but I have not yet had an opportunity to confirm this information although I believe it is reliable. From the best information obtained of the relative steam value of Pocahontas coal and the Welsh coal at Port Said, I think 5 per cent would be a liberal allowance for the difference in quality. Discounting $6.33 5 per cent we have the equivalent value of Pocahontas coal of $6.02. Since the Panama Railroad Co. at the present time is delivering Pocahontas coal at the boiler room of our ice refrigerating plant at Cristobal for $4 a ton of 2,240 pounds, you see that there is a wide difference between the cost of Pocahontas coal and Cardiff coal when placed upon the same steaming basis. The prices that I furnished you as of date of November 22 were based upon 17/ at Cardiff, which did not include trimming or wharfage at Cardiff. Hence the advance of 6 pence a ton, which is for coal in ship at Cardiff. Very respectfully, EUGENE T. WILSON, EXHIBIT L. The CHAIRMAN ISTHMIAN CANAL COMMISSION, CRISTOBAL, December 30, 1911. Culbera, Canal Zone. SIR: Referring to previous correspondence on measurement of ships as basis for canal tolls: First, there are two general methods of measuring ships-one based on some unit of capacity and the other on some unit of weight. The measures based on capacity are the gross register tonnage, the net register tonnage, the Suez Canal gross and net register tonnage, and the cargo ton of 40 cubic feet. The weight basis is either the dead-weight carrying capacity of the ship in tons of 2.240 pounds avoirdupois when loaded down to "her marks;" that is, down to Plimsoll's line, or it is her displacement. Sometimes displacement is used to mean the weight of water that a ship displaces not under load, or at others the weight of water displaced with ship and cargo included. The difference in displacement between ship light and ship loaded is merely another form of computing dead-weight cargo carried. The basis of displacement is weight. The basis of the other measurements are capacity of ship. To my mind there are several objections to method of calculating tolls on weight basis. The first is that it is historically dead. It was thrashed out thoroughly at the Constantinople convention and it was decided there by all the representatives of all the countries present except France that the measure of a ship had always been one of capacity. It was De Lessep's contention that weight was the proper basis, and in this he was backed by the French Government and the French representatives. The second and principal objection is that a rate based upon weight discriminates altogether too much against different classes of commodities. The percentage of rate that a low-price commodity, such as wheat, lumber, iron ore, heavy machinery, and coal, must bear is relatively much greater than is imposed on high price cargo, which is usually light, such as cotton, cotton goods, shoes, wool, hides, hair, Japanese matting, furniture, manufactures of wood of all kinds, manufactures of wool of all kinds, raw silk, and manufactures of silk. The following figures show the ratio of measurement to weight of the following cargoes: The following, from our own experience, shows the ratio of measurement to weight and the percentage of freight to the value of the article: The unit of the above is the long ton of 2,240 pounds, and the measurement is ship's ton of 40 cubic feet. Generally speaking, anything stowing around 50 cubic feet to the ton will load a ship down to her marks and she will have her full dead-weight capacity. The estimate of shipping men here for cargoes coming from the United States to this part of the world, a large percentage of which consists of sugar machinery and heavy mining machinery, is about 48 cubic feet to the ton. Please note the following data in reference to wheat (37 bushels per ton): Gulf, bulk, 463 cubic feet per ton; Gulf, in bags, 53 cubic feet per ton; Gulf, sack flour, 57 cubic feet per ton. Bulk wheat will load a ship down, and with very careful stowa wheat in bags, by slashing some of the bags open with a knife, will load a slip down. Wheat, which is now worth $33.60 a ton f. o. b. San Francisco, eastbound, would pay more tolls on displacement or weight basis than a shipload of cotton worth $224 f. o. b. New Orleans, westbound for Japan. All ship rates of freight are based upon the bulk of the goods and are based upon the cubic carrying capacity of the ship. The element of value of cargo, of course, enters, also the risk and insurance, but space is the leading feature. Space is also the leading feature with the railroad rates. No railroad receiving freight as rapidly as they do would have time to measure it up and get the day's work done. Consequently, they require a very elaborate classification and a large number of different rates. The rate on cottons from New Orleans to Liverpool ports at the present time is quoted at 45 cents per hundred pounds, which amounts to $10.08 per ton, or 41 shillings 4 pence. The rate on general cargo is around 13 shillings 6 pence, and you will note the ratio is very close three to one, as general cargo will load a ship down. This rate figures out about 10 per cent of the value of the wheat and only about 4 per cent of the value of the cotton. There is a uniform lighterage rate per ton in New York. A few years ago it was 3 cents per ton, shot or feathers, which has been a source of endless complaint due to discrimination between commodities. You will remember the protests made by through carriers in reference to the uniform rate of $8 per ton made by the Panama Railroad a few months ago from New York to San Francisco. The data as to wool, rags, hides, and hair I take from a letter from Mr. Schwerin, of the Pacific Mail, to Mr. Drake, calling his attention to how little they would get based upon ship's capacity in view of the fact that they would be large shippers of these articles. This discrimination in commodities brings about a charge of discrimination against certain sections producing different commodities. The northwest coast man, producing but wheat and lumber, would claim that the South was favored in cotton and cotton goods, and also the East in cotton and cotton goods; manufacturers of iron and machinery of the middle Atlantic seaboard would claim that they were discriminated against everywhere. In fact, I believe a system of tonnage based upon weight would cause nothing but trouble and would soon have to be abandoned. Another point against this system is that since nobody uses it officially, there is difficulty in determining what it is. It is true that the ship's builder furnishes the ship with a scale showing her draft at different amounts of dead weight in her, but since any draftsman can produce these scales it might not be difficult for a crafty owner to have them altered. The total draft is usually determined by reading the draft forward and reading the draft aft and taking the mean. There is great practical difficulty in doing this in any water that is exposed to storm and particularly in water on which there is any swell at all and it would be very difficult to do this on a dark and stormy night. Another point is this, that when a ship is loaded down near her marks a difference of but a few inches in immersion makes a large difference in tonnage, and this difference would also depend on whether the ship was in fresh water, salt water, or partially salt water. I venture to say that when the breakwaters in Colon are completed that a good part of the water in the bay will be fresh and that up in the canal proper on the Atlantic side it will be almost entirely fresh. There is a large advantage in using figures that are upon ship's papers, because all foreign Governments that I know anything about use the tonnage that is on the ship's papers as a basis for computing their home taxes. The lighthouses in Great Britain are kept up by taxes on ships' tonnage. It is, therefore, to the interest of foreign Governments to see that these figures are correct and not lower than they should be, and for their own protection they punish their shipowners and captains if they are not correct. Consequently, the tonnage that appears on the ship's papers can be used as a basis and will bring into existence as a part of our organization for measurement, all officials of foreign Governments who are disinterested as far as this canal is concerned, and who have every interest on their own account to see that these are entered correctly and kept correctly, and this work will not cost us a cent; whereas any system of measurement which is not generally used would be troublesome, vexatious, and expensive to both. |