As previously pointed out a heavy reduction in tolls rates would benefit foreign shipping more than American interests.

The change to the single basis is one that should be made. It would eliminate confusion and inconvenience and establish a genuinely equitable basis for the levy of tolls on all kinds of vessels.

A general statement as to canal finances will be of interest in this connection. The canal is now, and in all probability will continue to be, a paying commercial investment. Receipts from tolls are now running over $2,250,000 a month, and while they may fall from time to time through decrease of traffic, it is not believed that they will go below $2,000,000 a month, and may materially exceed the figure first given. At these figures the canal is paying operating expenses, all fixed charges, including maintenance, depreciation, and amortization charges, and interest on the investment of a little more than 3 per cent.

CANAL TRANSIT OPERATIONS

NOTE. Interest on the capital investment is not included in the expenses in the above tables.

The following tables and statements, taken from the article referred to, by Governor Burgess, are of interest:

1 Canal opened to traffic Aug. 15, 1914.
Canal closed to traffic approximately 7 months of fiscal year by slides.

The above shows gross returns from tolls; the following table shows the net returns for the past three fiscal years, as given in the annual reports, from all operations here, with the addition of dividends paid into the Treasury by the Panama Railroad Co.:

NOTE.-The calculations of net earnings referred to are based upon commercial accounting practices involving accrued revenues and expenses; distinction between capital and operating expenditures; and allowance for depreciation, amounting to approximately $2,500,000 annually They do not include interest.

COMPARISON OF TOLLS AT PANAMA AND SUEZ

While I have shown that it is inadvisable to lower Panama Canal tolls, I have made no comparison between the charges at Panama and those at Suez, but such comparison is interesting. The tolls collected at the latter canal considerably exceed those of the Panama, in spite of the fact that the older canal cost less than one-third of the American canal.

Toll rates at Suez were reduced on January 1, 1929, and at present are, in gold francs, as follows: Loaded vessels, 6.90; in-ballast vessels, 4.40; each adult passenger, 10 francs; and each passenger under 12 years, 5 francs. The charge is based on the tonnage measured by Suez Canal rules.

The Panama Canal makes no charge for passengers, and collects for loaded vessels from $0.90 to $1.20 per ton, averaging somewhat less than $1 per ton, Panama Canal measurement. For in-ballast vessels the charge is $0.72 per Panama Canal ton.

The two methods of measurements may be taken as approximately the same although the number of Suez tons for a vessel is usually somewhat in excess of the number of tons as determined by the Panama Canal rules.

The following table gives the tolls for 15 vessels picked at random from among those whose Suez measurement is on record at the Panama Canal headquarters. Were the Panama Canal owned by a private corporation, the toll rates would undoubtedly be fixed at figures no lower than those for Suez.

NOTE. The amounts shown for Suez do not include charges for passengers. Suez tolls charges are based on Suez net tonnage increased by tonnage of double-bottom compartments used for fuel oil. The rates used were 6.9 francs loaded, 4.4 francs ballast, with the franc valued at $0.193.

SHOWING PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE LAW

Following is shown the paragraph of section 5 of the Panama Canal act (par. 1315, U. S. C.) which this measure would amend. The sentence which would be eliminated is shown within black brackets and the sentence to be inserted is shown in italics.

Tolls may be based upon gross or net registered tonnage, displacement tonnage, or otherwise, and may be based on one form of tonnage for warships and another for ships of commerce. The rate of tolls may be lower upon vessels in ballast than upon vessels carrying passengers or cargo. 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, subject, however, to the provisions of article 19 of the convention between the United States and the Republic of Panama, entered into November 18, 1903. [If the tolls shall not be based upon net registered tonnage, they shall not exceed the equivalent of $1.25 per net registered ton as nearly as the same may be determined, nor be less than the equivalent of 75 cents per net registered ton] If the tolls are not based upon net registered tonnage, they shall not exceed the equivalent, as nearly as may be determined, of $1 per net ton (determined in accordance with the Rules for the Measurement of Vessels for the Panama Canal, prescribed by a proclamation by the President, November 21, 1913, as amended from time to time), nor be less than the equivalent, as nearly as may be determined, (a) of 75 cents per net ton (determined in accordance with such rules, as amended from time to time) in the case of vessels not in ballast, or (b) of 60 cents per net ton (determined in accordance with such rules, as amended from time to time) in the case of vessels in ballast. The toll for each passenger shall not be more than $1.50.

COLLECTION OF FEES FOR WORK DONE FOR THE BENEFIT OF INDIANS

MARCH 13, 1930.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. LEAVITT, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 10627]

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 10627) to amend the act of February 14, 1920, authorizing and directing the collection of fees for work done for the benefit of Indians, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass without amendment.

The paragraph of existing law reads as follows:

That hereafter in the sale of all Indian allotments, or in leases or assignment of leases covering tribal or allotted lands for mineral, farming, grazing, business, or other purposes, or in the sale of timber thereon, the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby authorized and directed, under such regulations as he may prescribe, to charge a reasonable fee for the work incident to the sale, leasing, or assigning of such lands, or in the sale of the timber, or in the administration of Indian forests, to be paid by vendees, lessees, or assignees, or from the proceeds of sales, the amounts collected to be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.

In lieu of the above the following paragraph is substituted:

That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized in his discretion, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, to collect reasonable fees to cover the cost of any and all work performed for Indian tribes or for individual Indians, to be paid by vendees, lessees, or assignees, or deducted from the proceeds of sales, leases, or other sources of revenue: Provided, That the amounts so collected shall be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts, except when the expenses of the work are paid from Indian tribal funds, in which event they shall be credited to such funds: Provided further, That where fees for work paid for from Indian tribal funds have heretofore been collected and deposited as miscellaneous receipts under the said act of February 14, 1920, the amounts thereof are hereby authorized to be appropriated and credited on the books of the Treasury to the funds charged with the cost of the work.

HR-71-2-VOL 259

The following favorable report from the Secretary of Interior explains the need for this legislation:

Hon. SCOTT LEAVITT,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, March 7, 1930.

Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs,

House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The act of February 14, 1920 (41 Stat. L. 415) provides:

"That hereafter in the sale of all Indian allotments, or in leases or assignment of leases covering tribal or allotted lands for mineral, farming, grazing, business or other purposes, or in the sale of timber thereon, the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed, under such regulations as he may prescribe, to charge a reasonable fee for the work incident to the sale, leasing, or assigning of such lands, or in the sale of the timber, or in the administration of Indian forests, to be paid by vendees, lessees, or assignees, or from the proceeds of sales, the amounts collected to be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts."

What Congress apparently had in mind was to require repayment of expenses incurred by the United States in connection with the selling and leasing of Indian lands and the marketing of timber from such lands. When these expenses are paid from public funds the intent of the act is accomplished by covering the fees into miscellaneous receipts. But when the expenses are paid from Indian tribal funds, as is the case in many instances, the deposit of the fees to the credit of miscellaneous receipts appears to be unwarranted, unjust, and beyond the purpose and intent of the statute. They must be so deposited, however, under a decision of the Comptroller General.

To remedy this situation I submit a draft of a proposed bill to amend the act of February 14, 1920, so as to make the collection of fees optional in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, and to require any fees hereafter collected for work paid for from Indian tribal funds to be credited to such funds; also to authorize the appropriation and credit to Indian tribal funds of all sums already covered into miscellaneous receipts where the work performed has been paid for from such funds. The proposed amendment would also permit the collection of fees to reimburse the United States for expenditures from annual appropriations for expenses of the Geological Survey in connection with the administration of laws relating to mining on Indian lands as contemplated by the act of May 10, 1926 (44 Stat. 487). See also the act of March 4, 1929 (45 Stat. 1570), appropriating $75,000 for transfer to the Geological Survey for such expenses. The records show that $1,096,697.47 was collected and covered into miscellaneous receipts in accordance with the act of February 14, 1920, during the fiscal years 1921 to 1929, inclusive. How much of this sum would be for credit to tribal funds if the statute were amended as proposed has not been definitely ascertained, but would probably be about $500,000. However, it does not seem advisable to specify a definite amount in the bill, because additional deposits are being made at the end of each month.

A somewhat similar bill (H. R. 16248), providing for crediting the Osage tribal fund with fees theretofore collected at Osage Agency under the act of February 14, 1920, and amending said act, was reported favorably by the Committee on Indian Affairs of the House of Representatives during the last regular session of Congress, but was not passed. Copies of the bill and report are furnished herewith.

It is recommended that the legislation submitted herewith receive early consideration.

Very truly yours,

RAY LYMAN WILBUR, Secretary.

О