The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

Marine Review FOUNDED 1878 SHIP OPERATION : Volume 65 SHIPBUILDING : March, 1935 Propose Single System for Panama Canal Tolls providing a single system of admeasure- ment of vessels, using the Panama canal rules, aS a basis for assessing tolls for transit- ting the canal. This legislation is generally opposed by American shipowners because it is believed that the amount of tolls so assessed will be materially higher than under the pres- ent dual system. Under the dual system United States regis- tered tonnage is also used as a basis of meas- urement in accordance with the provision of the existing law, which requires that the tolls paid by a vessel for transit of the canal, based on Panama canal rules, shall not be greater than the product of the cost per ton and the United States net registered tonnage. It is a matter of serious concern, especially in the present circumstances that shipping should not be burdened with extra cost. There can be no reasonable disagreement, however, on any grounds of logic convenience, and safe- ty as to the wisdom of discarding the existing pernicious system of dual classification. A single system would be preferable in every way. It would do away with the subterfuges that now must be used to reduce tonnage. It is merely a legal way of evading the real intent of the rules and is vicious, unsatisfactory and absurd. It would be far better if the ship were allowed to remain as properly designed and built and the spaces deliberately exempted from measurement. As a matter of fact there need be no increase, except in obviously unfair instances, if the rate per ton is sufficiently reduced. There is no rea- son whatsoever to place the responsible officers of the government, the secretary of war, who makes the recommendation of the rate to be fixed per ton and the President of the United States who approves the rate, in a position in- EGISLATION is now pending in congress CARGO HANDLING Number 3 imical to the interests of the merchant marine. The article in this issue on Panama canal tolls by the governor of the Canal Zone makes it perfectly clear that there is no disposition on the part of the canal authorities to advocate a system of assessing tolls which would be more burdensome financially on American shipping. It is pointed out that a rate of not over 90 cents per ton would be recommended and that an analysis of all the tolls paid on American ships transitting the canal in the last fiscal year worked out at the rate of 87 cents per ton. Also that a modification of the Panama canal rules of measurement can be made to remove any ex- isting disparity in certain classes of vessels where found necessary. We are convinced that opposition to a single system of measurement is not the logical or reasonable approach to the solution of this problem. Additional expense to shipping must be avoided and the present returns in tolls are sufficient to provide for operation, upkeep and depreciation, with due consideration to the mili- tary uses of this waterway which cannot right- ly be charged to the mercantile marine. Con- sequently the charges per ton and amendment of the rules, where necessary, are the real fac- tors in any reasonable difference of opinion and these are subject to adjustment in such a way that there can be no unjustifiable increase in the cost of transitting the canal. Such a meth- od will be fair to all. The Panama canal rules are the logical standards for assessing the tolls. They rep- resent a thorough survey and study of vessel measurement. They embody the experience of the past. By adopting a single system, using these rules, endless controversy and continual inconvenience are forever eliminated. Keeping these rules as the basis, with what- ever amendments may be necessary to suit present day standards and types of ships, and an agreed upon fair charge per ton, will bring about a solution once for all of this controver- sial subject which will be satisfactory to all fair-minded men. MARINE REVIEw—March, 1935 9