Page images
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

TABLE X.-Summary of recorded net register tonnage of vessels employed in commerce that would have used the Panama Canal in 1909-10.
TOTAL ENTRANCES AND CLEARANCES, AS STATED IN ABOVE TABLES, WITHOUT DEDUCTION.

Entrances and clearances at New York from and to Puerto Mexico. For tonnage at Salina Cruz, Hawaii, and San Francisco, see Table 9.

The "Total entrances" and "Total clearances" exceed the sum of the entrances and clearances "with cargo" and "with ballast" by the amount of the tonnage not subdivided prised in the preceding columns. into "with cargo" and "in ballast." Moreover, the final column of "Total entrances and clearances" includes 158,000 tons-Pacific coast of United States via Suez Canal-not com

[graphic]

TABLE XI.-Net register tonnage of vessels that might have advantageously used a Panama Canal in 1909-10.

TOTAL ENTRANCES AND CLEARANCES, AS STATED IN ABOVE TABLES, WITH PROPER DEDUCTIONS.

Not reported whether with cargo or in ballast but the totals are entered under "Total entrances" and "Total clearanecs," with the exception of the 158,000 tons "Pacific coast
of the United States via Suez Canal," which can be incuded only in the final column, "Total entrances and clearances." In the entrance and clearance figures for the Pacific coast
of the United States via Cape Horn, steam and sail tonnages are not separated.
2 Not including Hawaii.

The "Total entrances" and "Total clearances" exceed the sum of the entrances and clearances "with cargo" and "in ballast" by the amount of the tonnage not subdivided
in "with cargo" and "in ballast." Moreover, the final column of "Total entrances and clearances" includes 158,000 tons-Pacific coast of United States via Suez Canal-not
reported in the preceding columns.

Dr. JOHNSON. A brief word of explanation in regard to these tables is necessary. Extracted as they are from the text that explains them, they may be difficult to understand, and may, indeed, be misleading.

Let me say, first of all, that the tables present figures of net register tonnage of vessels. The official figures of all countries regarding ships give net register tonnage, and taxes imposed upon ships for the use of ports or for the passage of canals is upon the basis of net register tonnage. There are 11 tables. Tables 1 to 10 state the figures of total entrances and clearances, without any deductions or corrections, and indicate the volume of shipping between the North Atlantic and Pacific countries, both American and foreign. These first 10 tables include much more tonnage than would use the Panama Canal. Each of these tables has been subjected to economic analysis, and the result of that analysis is a final table, No. 11, which states the net register tonnage of vessels that might have advantageously used the Panama Canal in 1909-10, the total entrances and clearances as stated in the preceding tables, with proper deductions. You will notice that the final total is 8,328,029 tons of vessels. This is what our investigation indicates was available for the use of the Panama Canal in the year ending June 30, 1910. I should state further that these tables do not directly take into account the influence of tolls upon the volume of traffic. That, however, has been considered carefully and at length in a later chapter on the subject of tolls in their relation to traffic. However, the traffic indicated in Table 11 is the traffic which would use the canal unless the tolls were higher than they probably will be.

The question of tolls in relation to traffic is largely a question of the relation to Panama tolls to Suez tolls, and we could go at Panama up to the Suez level in the matter of tolls before the effect of tolls upon traffic became vitally important. I do not mean that it would be wise to put tolls at Panama as high as they are at Suez; but the Panama and Suez routes are on an equal footing of competition, as regards the factor of tolls, when the tolls are the same at the two routes. I shall take up the relation of tolls to the volume of traffic later, with your permission, and will merely say in passing that the subsequent discussion of tolls in relation to traffic does not diminish this total of available tonnage.

The increase in traffic from 1909-10 to 1914-15 is especially important, because we are more concerned to know what traffic is going to use the canal when it is opened and during the early years of its operation than we are to know the traffic that would have used it a year or more ago.

I stated in my testimony yesterday that it was found in 1899-1900 that 5,000,000 tons net register of shipping was then available for the use of the Panama Canal. The increase during the 11 years ending June 30, 1910, was (6 per cent, or at the rate of 59 per cent per decade. That rate of increase, projected to 1914-15, would mean an increase of 26.8 per cent during the five years following 1910, which would bring the total of 8,328,000 to 10,000,500 tons at the time of the opening of the canal.

It is important to decide whether we are justified in assuming that the Panama Canal traffic will increase during the five-year period in which we now are at the rate at which it has increased during the preceding 10 years, and it is also desirable to know whether the increase in available Panama Canal traffic corresponds or does not correspond to the increase in the world's commerce. We subjected this

matter of estimated traffic in 1914-15 to careful statistical tests. We found that the Suez Canal traffic, which is an old and established traffic, the route having been in existence since 1869, a route through which there is already a large volume of traffic, had an increase of somewhat over 70 per cent during the decade ending in 1910, an increase from less than ten millions to sixteen and a half million tons.

We found that the United States trade with non-European countries, which would probably be more indicative of the Panama Canal prospects than anything else, increased 78 per cent from 1900 to 1910.

It was found that the trade between the Atlantic and Gulfports of the United States and Pacific countries-that is, the trade from our entire Atlantic-Gulf seaboard to the Pacific countries and in the opposite direction increased 72.9 per cent during the decade ending in 1910.

Thus the tests which may be applied to our 59 per cent of increase in available canal traffic indicate, I think conclusively, that our estimate is a conservative one for the period ending in 1910 and that we may wisely assume that the rate of increase from 1899 to 1910 will continue to 1914-15.

In order to make my testimony a little more conclusive on this point I will ask your permission to insert in the record a chart, showing graphically the increase in the Suez Canal traffic.

The CHAIRMAN. Then pass it to the stenographer and it will be identified and inserted at this point. (See p. 700.)

Dr. JOHNSON. A table of one page in size, showing the growth of the trade of the Atlantic and Gulf ports with Pacific countries, will, I think, make the record more instructive, and with your permission I will insert that.

The CHAIRMAN. Pass that to the stenographer to identify.

Trade of Atlantic and Gulf ports of United States with Pacific countries east of Singapore.1

[blocks in formation]

1 Not including Alaska, western Mexico, western Central America except Salvador, and Pacific Coast of United States.

*Not accounting for $27,456, which is not distributed by ports.

Decline.

Included under Australia.

[blocks in formation]

pore in 1900 and in 1910. The increase was 52 and a fraction per

cent.

The lines marked "B" on the chart refer to the trade of the United States with foreign Pacific countries east of Singapore, the increase there having been 72.9 per cent.

[blocks in formation]

Dr. JOHNSON. I have here a diagram which presents graphically the facts which I have categorically stated. (See Exhibit X, p. 701.) The length of the lines can, I think, be seen by the members of the committee. The two lines at the left, marked "A", indicate the trade of Europe with Pacific countries east of Singa

« PreviousContinue »