Comparative statement of grand total freight passed through the undermentioned canals, seasons of navigation, 1912 and 1913.

The public service of Canadian canals must be measured in the light of the nationality of the traffic. The canals are entirely free to the vessels of the United States and Canada. Up to 1909 no record was kept of the origin of cargoes; but since that year it has been possible to separate the business of the United States from that of Canada. The facts with respect to the tonnage of vessels and of cargoes during the past six years are as follows:

Gathering the foregoing facts with respect to freight tonnage into percentage form, the result is as follows:

These totals and percentages relate entirely to freight tonnage which passed through the canals of Canada. They do not include the traffic which passed through the American canal at Sault Ste. Marie. At that point vessels passing up and down may take either the Canadian or American canal. When they pass through the Canadian canal a record is taken of the origin of the cargo, but when they pass through the American canal no such record is taken. Hence it is always impracticable to ascertain with exactness the volume of traffic which belongs to Canada. Until the United States takes cognizance of the origin of cargoes this unsatisfactory situation will continue.

A record is kept at the office of the Canadian canal at Sault Ste. Marie, and it was found that for 1913 but 6 per cent of all the freight tonnage which passed through both canals at that important gateway was carried in Canadian vessels.

Of this freight carried through the Soo Canals 94 per cent was in American vessels and 6 per cent in Canadian vessels. The average number of vessels passing through the locks per day were as follows in 1912:

Through Poe Lock (navigable water in lock, 18.5)
Through Weitzel Lock (navigable water in lock, 12.9).
Through Canadian Lock (navigable water in lock, 19)-

38

32

These figures show conclusively that the Canadian and the foreign business through these locks is of slight consequence, but that the bulk of it is the coastwise commerce of the United States.

AMERICAN VESSELS USED CANADIAN LOCK.

It is evident that the large American vessels used the Canadian Lock to a very great extent, while the Canadian vessels very slightly use the American Locks. So the retaliatory statute I have described can practically have no effect. This is unquestioned. The reasons are that frequently conditions of navigation make it more convenient, and, more important yet, the Canadian Lock has a navigable depth of 19 feet, while the Poe Lock has 18.5 feet. The Canadian Lock has 6 inches more water for actual use, and each inch will transport on the average about 100 additional tons of freight. By this the earning capacity of each freighter so using such depth, could be increased at least $450 for each trip, or double such sum for the round trip, and for a season would amount for each vessel to several thousands of dollars each year.

VALUE OF CANADIAN CANALS TO THE UNITED STATES.

In 1911 6.854 vessels passed the Canadian Lock, and it is probable that at least two-thirds of them were American. So that the value of such use in additional freightage for Americans would amount to fully $10,000,000 for the season.

These official statistics show two incontrovertible facts: First, that the retaliatory act of 1892 can have no terror for Canada, because her vessels no longer use our canal as they have a better one of their own. Second, our exports to Canada far exceed our imports from Canada, so there is nothing upon which 38662-13136

we can retaliate; but rather the contrary, if Canada shall so decide.

You will note that the estimate for our coastwise trade through the Panama Canal during 1915, when it shall be opened, was 1,160,000 tons. That is insignificant compared with our vessels and freight using the Canadian canals for more than 40,000,000 tons annually. We can not exclude the Canadians from the use of the St. Clair channels, since they could equally exclude us from the use of the St. Lawrence River.

Why, the little Welland Canal, of only 14 feet depth, will carry far more American traffic than our coastwise traffic, protected by the Panama act, which will pass through the Panama Canal next year. [Applause.] Just think of it! Now, you gentlemen from the Central West who are proposing to vote for a policy which allows discrimination in favor of our commerce on the south, if that policy be continued by our Government, it will surely lead to the same kind of discrimination against our commerce in the north. [Applause.] The same rule will certainly work both ways, and it is our action on this measure which will either avert or bring on such a conflict. Now, let me show you how certain and important it is.

SHIP CANAL.

Next year I think the United States will finish its new canal at the Soo, with a depth of 24 feet. But Canada has begun a new canal at the Soo, with a depth of 30 feet. Next year Canada will finish a new canal at Welland, with a draft of 30 feet. Canada has already finished three surveys for ship canals connecting the Great Lakes with the St. Lawrence River and, through it, the Atlantic Ocean. These ship canals, some of 30 feet draft, are under consideration, and one will certainly be constructed in the not far distant future. This preparation of 30-foot locks at Welland and the Soo indicates that soon ship canals will move sea trafic from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean. Now, if we insist upon a discriminating policy against Canada and in favor of the 1,000,000 tons or so of our coastwise commerce through the Panama Canal, we must expect a similarly discriminating policy on the part of Canada in favor of her own people and against our 40,000,000 tons in the use of her great waterways of the North. [Applause.]

Do you realize the volume of that commerce? The reports are that the Panama Canal when it shall be finished, if worked te its utmost 12 months in the year, will have the annual capacity to pass 80,000,000 tons of commerce. Last year the Soo Canals alone passed 79,721,525 tons of commerce, of which more than 94 per cent was American.

CENTRAL WEST.

Yet some of you men of the Central West are voting to discriminate against that 74,000,000 tons of our commerce, in favor of a petty million tons which may pass through the Panama Canal. [Applause.]

What does it mean to us in the Central West? It means that every acre of our land, every bushel of our grain, which competes with the land and the grain of Canada in the markets of the world, may be obliged to pay a discriminating charge in transit through Canadian canals to the world's markets, as against the competing grain and the land of Canada. Such discrimination will increase the value of every acre of Canadian

land and of every bushel of Canadian grain, and proportionately decrease the value of our land and of our grain. [Applause.] The freight charges will be larger for our imports and our exports by this discrimination, to the direct advantage of our neighboring competitors.

I am unwilling to encourage and incite exactions against my people, in order to help those who already have had more than their fair share of the good things from this Government.

MICHIGAN.

I wish to call to the attention of the gentlemen from Michigan who propose to vote for a policy of discrimination, that your State lies right up against this great Canadian ship canal when it shall be finished; so that if your neighbors follow your example and pursue a discriminating policy as to their canals, as you propose to do as to ours; their seagoing vessels can unload their cargoes right opposite you and into the competing cities in Canada free of tolls or charges, but you will be made subject to charges which may practically prohibit their profitable use to you. You may see discriminating charges increase the advantages of your competitors across the straits from your flourishing and beautiful cities, and your competing industries may fade and languish through your action on this measure.

CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILROAD.

Many good men seem much terrified at the thought that the Canadian Pacific Railroad will greatly profit by the repeal of free tolls, and so in some mysterious way is powerfully operat ing toward the repeal. I have not known or had any reason to suspect any such activity on the part of that railroad company. My judgment is directly to the contrary, and I think that company has far more to gain by a policy of mutual discrimination than it could possibly lose from free tolls to American coastwise vessels. The probability is that the total freight movement from coast to coast, of the Canadian Pacific amounts to not more than 500,000 tons per annum. Most of that will continue to be so carried even after free tolls. There would be some loss on some traffic, but it would be comparatively slight. But if a policy of discrimination could be adopted by which Canada could force from the United States some of its industries, and build up the Canadian communities and interests at the expense of the neighboring competing American communities and interests, then the Canadian Pacific Railroad would really wax fat and prosper; then it could really extend its most profitable business, in which it would have almost a monopoly, and could indefinitely extend its operations. Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railroad would largely gain at the expense of our competing cities and trade along the Great Lakes. There is a real menace which our free-tolls friends can not seem to comprehend, but it is in the person of one of the largest and ablest-managed corporations of the world which well knows how to take advantage of such blunders as this Panama act.

NOT TOLLS ALONE.

Remember that a discriminating policy need not cover tolls alone. There are all sorts of ways where discriminating policies may be pursued against you and your people and your commerce. Tolls would only be a small part. Pilotage, towage, tonnage, light, harbor, and dockage dues, insurance and demurrage, 38662-13136

and there are infinite ways in which those shrewd competitive nations may discriminate against our commerce if they are so disposed. Now, the gentleman from California states that the Canadians maintain that they have the right to do it under that old treaty. If we have a right to discriminate under our treaty, I think clearly they can under that treaty. That is the serious question that the gentleman from California [Mr. KNOWLAND] desired to propound to me. [Applause.] I know it will be urged the treaty of 1871 has been replaced by the treaty of 1910, requiring equality of treatment. That is true, and I think it should be so construed. But so should the Panama treaty be so construed. If we initiate discrimination, they can repay in double measure. If we choose to misconstrue, they can follow our example to our infinite damage. You refuse to arbitrate such a dispute as this, they can equally refuse to arbitrate any such dispute as I have outlined. We then would be helpless, and our only redress would be war. Is not it best for both to continue to be fair and just and right in all our dealings with all our neighbors and all the nations?

(5)

NEW GRANADA.

Now, there is another phase of our history that should be remembered and to which I especially wish to call the attention of my friends from New York and California. In 1846 we made a treaty with New Granada concerning communications across the Isthmus of Panama, which covered all kind of transportation. That treaty provided that our people and our commerce should be treated on equal terms with the people and the commerce of New Granada. You will recall that was about the time of the discovery of gold fields in California. Thousands of our citizens and thousands of tons of our commerce passed over that great highway. The Governments of Panama and Colombia sought to discriminate in numberless ways against our citizens and commerce. They passed and exercised various acts of discrimination against our people. Our people bitterly complained. The records of the State Department contain hundreds of protests, hundreds of complaints, from the citizens of California and from the citizens of New York against the Governments of Panama and New Granada. Our Presidents, our Secretaries of State, our ministers, protested, sometimes effectively, sometimes in vain.

The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Minnesota has expired.

Mr. STEVENS of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman may proceed and take all the time he wishes. [Applause.] Mr. STEVENS of Minnesota. We protested, I say. Twice warships were sent to enforce equality of treatment, once by a Democratic administration and once by a Republican administration, and we forced New Granada and we forced little Colombia and little Panama to yield to our citizens and to our commerce equality of treatment in the passage of that Isthmus.

Now, that same treaty is in force. Secretary Knox officially notified the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce that that same treaty is in force and effect right now. Secretary RooT and Secretary Hay based their negotiations with Colombia on the fact that that treaty is in force.

Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?