country. We have in New Haven some men who are going to get up a meeting of protest against the President's message, and I propose to go there and have my say against it.

One of those men is a man I know very well, and I can not blame him particularly. He is an old man now who was in the Fenian insurrection. He was as the old veterans of the Civil War were in the campaign of 1884; they thought that no Democrat could be a good President, because they remembered that there had been a civil war and that the Democrats took the side of the South in many respects in that war. I was one of the small company of men in New Haven who swung the State for Cleveland, and I can not begin to tell you the bitter obloquy and denouncement we had. Many of them I could not blame because they were Civil War veterans, and they thought any man who was a Democrat in power as President was disloyal to his country. Now they see how absurd that was. I remember what Mr. Henry W. Lucy-(Toby M. P., of Punch)-said in regard to home rule. He said in 1885 that the time would come when home rule would be looked up as natural as free trade in England. But this man in New Haven that I have spoken of had it burned into his brain from his suffereings in prison, but it is very unfortunate for the young man who can not see that a new day has dawned, and that England is, under Liberal leadership, going to do thorough justice to Ireland, and that there is no right or justice in injecting this hostility to England argument into a question of tolls on the Panama Canal.

I have come practically now to the end of your time. As I said, I should be very glad if I could criticize the editorials in the Washington Post, because they seem to me just as unjust as those of the Tory Party in England on the question of home rule and liberal government. I thank you very much for the privilege of addressing you and submitting my views to you, and I should be very glad to send you the other pamphlet which I have, which I think contains more closely the facts with regard to the seizure of Panama in 1901, from more reliable records than any I know of.

(Thereupon, at 5 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Saturday, April 18, 1914, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)

SATURDAY, APRIL 18, 1914.

COMMITTEE ON INTEROCEANIC CANALS,
UNITED STATES SENATE,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m. Present: Senators O'Gorman (chairman), Thornton, Shields, Walsh, Thomas, Simmons, Brandegee, Borah, Crawford, Perkins, and Page.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Bonaparte was expected to be present this morning. He is probably detained and the committee will hear Mr. Dunn."

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL L. DUNN, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.

The CHAIRMAN. State your profession or occupation.

Mr. DUNN. I am a consultant, engineering and legal, to large enterprises.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Did you say you are a lawyer?

Mr. DUNN. The Senator has been kind enough to say that I am, in publishing something that I have written.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you submit now to the committee any views that you have regarding the pending legislation?

Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in the issue of the Congressional Record of April 1, 1914, pages 6338 to 6340, there is printed a dissertation by the speaker, under the title, "Effect of Panama Canal on sea traffic." My remarks to your committee will in substance be an amplification of three or four paragraphs of that paper which discussed, giving some figures of estimates, the probable commerce which would route itself through the Panama Canal between Pacific coast ports of our States and Territory of Alaska, and Pacific coast ports of Canada, with Atlantic coast ports of our States and Europe. The discussion of this commerce was in terms of short tons, tons of 2,000 pounds, in order to convenience comparison with railroad rates, and did not refer to the ships which would be carriers of this commerce. The discussion of this address will be of this same commerce in terms of the ships which will carry it, coastwise and thus interstate, and foreign, and so that the entire subject matter before your committee, as I understand it, shall come before it from my point of view as a symmetrical whole, facilitating the committee's comparison with other points of view presented to it. I shall extend my remarks to include all of the additional commerce, in terms of the ships which may carry it, which will pass through the canal en route between Pacific coast ports of our possessions, Hawaii and the Philippines, and foreign countries' ports, and Atlantic ports of our States and of foreign countries.

ANNUAL TONNAGE PACIFIC COAST EXPORTS BY CANAL.

The article in the Congressional Record, to which reference is made, contains a table, estimating the annual freight tonnage, which, after the necessary new trade adjustments become made, will be exported from Pacific coast ports northward from Mexico, through the canal, to our States, Atlantic ports, and to the Atlantic ports of foreign nations. I relate it here with the addition of the figures of the equivalent ship register tonnage so that it may be measured in terms of the carrying vessels, as follows

Senator BRANDEGEE. Would it interrupt you if I asked you there what this article is that you refer to in the Record? Is it some speech? Do you know who wrote it? I would like to identify it.

Mr. DUNN. It was presented on April 1st by Senator Works of California.

The CHAIRMAN. It was a statement of yours?

Mr. DUNN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It was introduced into the Record by Senator Works, of California?

Mr. DUNN. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And you are amplifying that?

Mr. DUNN. I am amplifying that myself upon the point as to which I understand the committee desires information. I am not repeating it at all; this is entirely new.

The CHAIRMAN. Right there, for the purpose of the record, will you indicate what is the difference between a short ton and a net ton? Mr. DUNN. I think I have already stated that. The CHAIRMAN. If you did, it escaped me.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Let me ask the witness a question, and this is the last time I will interrupt him. Do you want to proceed and read what you have written in order that it may be consecutive without any questions being asked; that is, have us defer our questions until you have finished, or do you wish to be interrupted?

Mr. DUNN. That is entirely at the pleasure of the committee. Senator BRANDEGEE. It will be at your pleasure, whichever way you prefer, I think. I want to conform to it; that is all.

Mr. DUNN. I have a great many figures here, and for that reason I wrote out what I was to say, because one simple head can not carry it all.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I understand that, but what is your preference?

Mr. DUNN. I am so well prepared on the subject, Senator, that I am ready to answer any questions that suggest themselves.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that will be the program. You may proceed. Senator SIMMONS. You say you made a statement about the tons that you have referred to. I did not catch it. You spoke of long tons and short tons and ship tons or vessel tons.

Mr. DUNN. No; I spoke of two types of tons-short tons of 2,000 pounds, and explained that my reason for putting that in the table on Senator Works's presentation of mine was that it was in such form that it could be directly compared with railroad transportation. I used the expression "vessel-tons"--the net vessel tons of 100 cubic feet, because that is the unit on which tolls are based-and I have endeavored here, as I will explain further on, to bring them together. Senator SIMMONS. Right there, will you give us an idea as to the average weight of the vessel tons, calculated upon the capacity of spaces?

Mr. DUNN. The table that I am reading makes just those computations.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. DUNN. The computed figures of net vessel tonnage are based on the unit designated in President Taft's proclamation of tolls under the Panama Canal act of August 24, 1912; 100 cubic feet of actual earning capacity, which would include cargo holds below decks

and passenger holds below deck and cabins above deck. My computations are not offered as precise. The tonnage measurement rule is a new one. I know of no other computations on it but my own here made, which might, in fact, prove more or less accurate. They are, however, close enough to the fact, whatever it may be hereafter found, to serve with sufficient accuracy the purpose for which they are presented here.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Which tonnage rule is a new one?

Mr. DUNN. The rule promulgated by President Taft in his proclamation.

The CHAIRMAN. You mean as to vessel tons?

Mr. DUNN. I think this is the first time I recall a hundred cubic feet being used as a unit. We usually estimate in terms of 40 cubic feet, on the ground that 40 cubic feet equals just about 2,200 pound weight of water. That was the reason for the old rule, and this is a new rule.

Senator BRANDEGEE. When you speak of the tonnage of a vessel that is a purely arbitrary phrase, is it not, based on a formula meaning so much cubic space? Then they find out how much cubic space, or how much cargo that cubic space will carry, what weight of cargo. Mr. DUNN. No, sir.

Senator BRANDEGEE. What is the difference between the two phrases, please, cargo tonnage or cargo carrying capacity and vessel tonnage and net tonnage, for the purpose of the measurement under the rule prescribed by President Taft?

Mr. DUNN. The rule ordinarily is to measure what is called the displacement between the vessel loaded with the stores and ready for sea but empty of cargo, and then its displacement when it has its cargo on. That is then divided from the cubic feet which can be determined from the plans of the ships; they are then divided by 40 to give what is called the net tonnage. In this case President Taft's proclamation, instead of determining it by displacement, determined it by measurement of the space, so there is no real guide and I simply had to do the best I could with it.

In reading the proclamation-or I should say rather not that proclamation, but the following one made by President Wilson on November 21 of last year-the rules for measurement are given, and comparing them with the little I know about ship measurement, it seems to me that they would measure so much space that would not be counted ordinarily where the tonnage the ship would represent would be greater than its net tonnage, determined by the rule of displacement.

Senator BRANDEGEE. The tonnage displacement of a vessel means the weight of the water it displaces, does it not?

Mr. DUNN. Yes, sir. I would say in further explanation that the articles which go to sea are of all weights, specific gravity, and size, and the shippers make different rules for them.

The table total of registered ship tonnage can not be measured directly into units of ships. The number of ships which would become used in carrying this commerce is determined by the distribution of it between the Atlantic ports. This feature I will now discuss, explaining at the same time, by reference to current statistical figures of existing commerce in the same articles, the reason for my tabled figures of the prospective ship carried commerce from Pacific coast ports through the Panama Canal.

PRESENT TONNAGE EXPORTS BY SEA ROUTES.

The first item of my table, "Present export tonnage by sea routes, 500,000 short tons," needs no explanation. This tonnage goes by sea because by sea is the cheapest way of transport. It will continue to go by sea because the new sea way by the Panama Canal will be still cheaper.

Senator SIMMONS. Does that go by the Horn or by the Isthmus? Mr. DUNN. It goes almost entirely by the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and the Isthmus of Panama.

The next item, "Probable diversion from railroads, 2,000,000 short tons," is based on an estimate of the existing annual freight tonnage moved by rail overland from the Pacific coast at 3,000,000 tons, published in the February, 1914, number of the National Geographic Magazine by O. P. Austin. Checked by my own independent information, I think his estimate fairly accurate. The present coast to coast rail rates vary from $11 per ton, which is the extreme minimum, up to about $120 per ton, the extreme maximum. The mean rate is, I think, not less than $27 per ton, nor more than $35 per ton. The mean all-sea coastwise by Panama Canal rate, exclusive of any toll charge, for the same articles will be from $5 to $7 per ton. The difference between these canal all-sea rates and the all-rail overland rates is so very great that all of the present coast to coast rail tonnage will become diverted to the all-sea canal route. I estimate that 2,000,000 tons out of the 3,000,000 tons will become so diverted, the 1,000,000 tons which will continue to go by rail lines being of articles absorbed into the commerce of the northern Mississippi Valley States. Senator SIMMONS. I understand you to say that 3,000,000 tons move by rail now?

Mr. DUNN. Moves by rail now from the Pacific coast-coast to

coast.

Senator SIMMONS. And you estimate that two-thirds of that will be diverted from the railroad?

Mr. DUNN. Yes, sir. The explanation of what I say in reply to the question of the Senator will be found in the other article. I am now avoiding repetition.

The CHAIRMAN. The explanation of what?

Mr. DUNN. The explanation of why the 2,000,000 tons will be diverted.

The CHAIRMAN. You may state it now, as briefly as you can.

Mr. DUNN. Simply because the canal route will be so very much cheaper that no man having goods, we will say, in New York, would route them over the railroad when he could send them for a third or a quarter of the price by water.

Senator PAGE. You think that the rate by water will be one-third or one-quarter of the overland rail prices?

Mr. DUNN. The rate by water is given further on in what I am reading, and the reasons for it explained in detail.

Senator PAGE. But there has been a claim, or a statement made here, that the rail rates being fixed, the steamers carrying freight would place a rate under the rail rate just sufficient to command business, and that the rate would not be made upon the basis of cost What do you think about that?