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

several countries was not a suitable quantity on which to base tolls charges. An international conference was called at Constantinople in 1873, as a result of which it was decided that the Brit- ish method would be used as a base and all illogical provisions which had crept into the rules would be elimin- ated and shelterdeck space would be included in the tonnage, regardless of the so called tonnage openings. This necessitated each vessel’s be- ing provided with a special Suez canal certificate showing gross and net tonnage under Suez rules. It was hoped that these would be adopted as international measure- ment rules for deriving registry ton- nage but this could not be accom- plished. The rate per net ton as determined by the Suez rules was to be established by the board of directors of the Suez Canal Co. as conditions might warrant, and rates have been adjusted rather _ fre- quently; in the 20 years since the opening of the Panama canal they have changed 15 times. Panama Canal Measurement In anticipation of the opening of the Panama canal, congress passed the Panama canal act of Aug. 24, 1912, to provide for the opening, maintenance, protection and opera- tion of the canal and the sanitation and government of the Canal zone. Section 5 of the act (as amended by the act of June 15, 1914, and now in effect), authorizes the President to prescribe and from time to time change the tolls which shall be levied by the government of the United States for the use of the canal and stated that tolls may be based upon gross or net registered tonnage, dis- placement tonnage, or otherwise and that the rate of tolls may be lower for vessels in ballast than for vessels carrying passengers or cargo. The act further states that ‘‘when based upon net registered tonnage for ships of commerce the tolls shall not exceed $1.25 per net registered ton, nor be less than 75 cents per net registered ton.’’ It was also provided that ‘‘the toll for each passenger shall not be more than one dollar and fifty cents.’’ The secretary of war had already appointed Dr. Emory R. Johnson, of the University of Pennsylvania, as special commissioner on Panama canal traffic and tolls and directed him to “formulate rules and regula- tions governing measurement of ships going through the canal and to make an investigation regarding the tolls to be charged.’’ Dr. Johnson’s report was called by the commissioner of navigation of the department of com- merce at that time ‘‘the most thor- ough treatise on admeasurement in any ‘language’ and his system of measurement ‘‘the most exact applica- tion of the scientific principle which should govern the subject, yet pre- pared.’’ Following the passage of the Panama canal act the President is- sued a proclamation on Nov. 13, 1912, announcing that the tolls rate on merchant vessels carrying pas- sengers or cargo would be ‘‘one dollar and twenty cents ($1.20) per net vessel-ton for each one _ hundred (100) cubie feet of actual earning capacity’’ and that on vessels in bal- last without passengers or cargo the rate would be 40 per cent less than the rate of tolls for vessels with pas- sengers or cargo. Law Limits Maximum Tolls About a year later, following the completion of the study by Dr. John- son and his formulation of rules for the measurement of vessels, the President issued a proclamation on Nov. 21, 1913, prescribing and pro- claiming the rules for the measure- ment of vessels for the Panama canal. These were the rules for determining the ‘‘net vessel ton—each 100 cubic feet,’’ on which the tolls prescribed in the proclamation of Noy. 13, 1912, were to be based. On the opening of the canal to commerce on Aug. 15, 1914, the canal administration proceeded to levy tolls in accordance with the two proclama- tions of the President, that is on the net tonnage determined by _ the Panama canal rules of measurement and at the rates prescribed in the proclamation of Nov. 13, 1912. West coast lumber interests protested that a charge for deck loads as made in accordance with these rules would in effect increase the tolls charges on a vessel beyond the limits set by the act of Aug. 24, 1912, as amended which provided that, ‘‘when based upon net registered tonnage for ships of commerce the tolls shall not exceed $1.25 per net registered ton,’ and the further provision in the act that, “if the tolls shall not be based upon the net registered tonnage, they shall not exceed the equivalent of $1.25 per net registered ton, as nearly as the same may be determined.’’ The whole matter was referred to the attorney general of the United States for interpretation. He rend- ered an opinion that the term ‘‘net registered tonnage,’ as it appeared in the act, referred to the net regis- tered tonnage under United States rules of measurement, and that any tolls charges, with or without deck load, which exceeded $1.25 times the net tonnage under United States registry measurement rules, were not collectible. Dual Measurement System This created a situation in which tolls charges were based on one form of tonnage, the Panama canal net tons, with a limiting feature based on another and different tonnage, the United States net. This has been termed the ‘‘dual system.’’ It was immediately recognized as unsatis- MARINE REvrieEw—September, 1935 factory and inequitable because of the variations in the United States net measurement of vessels of ap- proximately equal interior capacity, and because it prevented making the charges on a vessel in ballast 40 per cent less than on the same vessel when laden, except in the extremely rare case in which the canal and United States methods of measure- ment might produce approximately the same figure for net tonnage. That the President considered the situation unsatisfactory and probably detrimental was indicated in his let- ter of Feb. 15, 1915, to the secretary of war in which he stated, “If the congress Shall alter the existing law upon the subject there will perhaps be opportunity to deal with it more completely and _ satisfactorily; but until that course is taken the way herein suggested seems to me the best one to meet the existing situation.” The effects of the system, it devel- Oped, were worse than anticipated. Prior to the beginning of the World war the exemption of shelter deck spaces and superstructures was not permitted under the United States rules of measurement, regardless of tonnage openings. As a result of the war many vessels of foreign registry were allowed to come under the American flag, under emergency regulations, and with the acceptance of their net tonnage as established under foreign systems. These vessels therefore enjoyed exemptions of shelterdeck and other superstruc- tures by virtue of their registry docu- ments, a privilege not accorded to regular United States vessels. Tonnage Exemption Allowed To equalize this situation the bu- reau of navigation of the department of commerce issued a bulletin under date of March 16, 1915, which modi- fied the United State rules of meas- urement and set forth the conditions under which any United States vessel could claim exemption of these spaces. These were practically the same as under the British regulations and had the effect of allowing vessels to decrease very markedly their net tonnage under the United States rules of measurement. As such measurement of net ton- nage was very much less than net tonnage (actual earning capacity in units of 100 cubic feet) under the Panama canal rules, the reduction in United States measurement of net tonnage lowered the tolls of these vessels at the Panama canal. During the earlier years, however, the for- eign ships benefited more than those of the United States as they already had the necessary installations to qualify for exemption of spaces, while the United States vessels, built for registry under a different system, had to be reconditioned to effect the changes requisite for securing exemp- tion. 19