198 
THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE 
trade? Shall it be toll-free to all ships 
of all nations? Shall the rate be made 
only such as will pay for the mere cost 
of operation, allowing nothing for inter- 
est on the investment or for the final 
return of the cost of construction ? There 
are dozens of varying views on all of 
these matters. 
The first feature of the whole propo- 
sition is the fact that when we have 
completed the canal we will have a pos- 
sible ship-handling capacity of 80 million 
tons net register. This means that we 
can annually put over 200 million tons 
of cargo through the canal, since each 
net register ton of a ship, American 
measurement, means two and a half tons 
of ordinary cargo. Deducting for naval 
vessels and for light-loaded ships, and 
also for such as might go through in 
ballast, it is probable that the annual 
freight-carrying capacity of the canal 
will be upward of 125 million tons of 
actual cargo — enough to load a freight 
train reaching around the world. All 
hands realize that the more use of the 
canal the commercial interests of Amer- 
ica make the more valuable will it be- 
come. 
There are many who take the follow- 
ing view concerning the matter of tolls : 
If the United States is to make the most 
out of this great enterprise, the inland 
waterways of the country must be de- 
veloped to the point where the Missis- 
sippi River, the Missouri River, the Ohio 
River, and other streams of the great 
Mississippi Valley shall be made navi- 
gable for ocean-going steamers, so that 
vessels may load direct and go to the 
ends of the earth. Then, the rivers to 
the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards ought 
to undergo similar development. To do 
these things would require a half billion 
dollars. Consequently, if the government 
should reimburse itself for the outlay for 
the construction of the Panama Canal, 
it would be in good shape to undertake 
inland- waterway development. 
Those who subscribe to this view feel 
that a rate of toll can be fixed which 
would not discourage a ton of business 
from going through the canal, and yet 
which would serve ultimately to repay 
the cost of its construction. The rate 
which seems to meet with most favor 
is one dollar per net register ton. As 
explained before, the net register ton, 
American measurement, means two and 
a half tons of actual cargo. On that 
basis the rate per ton of cargo would, 
with the average cargo, amount to about 
45 cents. Such a rate would be less than 
five per cent of the through rate from 
San Francisco to New York. 
It is estimated that any rate above 
$1.40 per ton might drive business across 
the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. through the 
Straits of Magellan, or through the Suez 
Canal. The officials of the Tehuantepec 
route freely concede that if the rate is 
made as low as a dollar a ton they will 
have no chance at getting through-cargo 
business. They now get one-third of the 
through rate between San Francisco and 
New York, and between Hawaii and 
Atlantic seaboard points. What they are 
hoping for, however, is that there will 
result such a great boom in business 
upon the opening of the canal that they 
will gain enough distributing business to 
make up for their loss of through-cargo 
trade. 
Suez \v\l\ find Panama a great com- 
petitor with a rate of 45 cents per cargo 
ton. At Suez the Danube measurement 
is used, which allows only three-fifths as 
much space for a net register ton as does 
the American measurement. This re- 
sults in the rates at Suez being fixed 
at practically 75 cents per cargo ton, 
or nearly double the proposed rate at 
Panama. 
There are those wdio urge that the 
canal ought to be toll-free to all nations. 
They say this has been a great altruistic 
undertaking, and that our chief glory 
should be in making it usable without 
money or price by all the ships of all the 
seas. Those who oppose this idea say 
that the canal was built by Americans 
and for Americans, and that inasmuch 
as more than 50 per cent of the business 
which will pass through the canal will 
not touch our shores, there is no reason 
why it should be used to give Europe 
trade advantages to which we have fair 
title ourselves. 
