The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-09-05
HEARST DECL ARES THERE
SHOULD BE NO YIELDING TO
DEMANDS OF GREAT BRITAIN

LONDON. Sept. S.--To submit the
rights of the United States In the
Panama canal to arbitration at Ihe
Hague tribunal is to submit. q ques-
States to the Representatives or nations
whose Interests are directly opposed 10
the interests of the United States.
In the first place the majority OF
the powers represented at The Hague
tribunal are European, and Asiat!c
powers I'M American noWerS-fliess
foreign powers have ideas of govern
ment and of social and political
rights opposed to those of the United
States.
In the second place these foreign
powers have as rule actual ma
Iterial interests diametrically opposed
to those of the United States.
The Hague court Is essentially a
foreign court in it's constituent parts.
and in its sympathy and sentiment
Therefore. questions which are init
mately and peculiarly American can
not be safely submitted TO It,
There is no better Illustration OF
this fact than the one to be derived
from the canal question. The United
States built the canal after a euro
pean nation had failed to build IT,
The United States built the canal en-
tirely with it's own money, and with
its own efforts and enterprise The
United States acquired finally AZ Its
own absolute property the territory
through which the canal passes.
Domestic Possession.
The canal zone. therefore. is as
much a possession of the United States
as the District OF Columbia. in which
the capital at Washington is situated
The canal is domestic possession of
the United States.
Foreign nations desire certain priv
ileees In the canal Shall the United
States submit the question OF how
many privileges foreign nations shalt
have to an arbitration board com
posed In its large ma jortty of the
representatives of the foreign nations
interested"
Would dispute between capital
and labor be submitted for araitlsl-
ton to board composed mainly Of
capitalists. or. on the other hand. 10
a board composed mainly of labor
mer" II farmer had a dispute ahefs.
the ownership of a certain portion of
his farm would he submit that dispute
to the decision OF the other claimant
ro the land 1t rs obvious that
American interests could not receive
fair consideration from The Hague
tribunal In the matter Of this Panama
question.
49,
n IT Is probably true that ne question
involving distinctly American interests
or American Ideas. or American points
of view would receive altogether ,slist
treatment from this Enthusiastically
foreign court r feAU #itet-sst
a militant republic. and its success sc
republic is perpetual impeach-
ment OF dynastic and despotic forms
of government. The United States Is
an extremely progressive country. and
its ideas. its governmental attitude. its
fundamental principles arouse the
prejudices and opposition OF most
European and Asiatic governments
'fhe United States Fl a. very prosperous
and powerful country and its power
and prosperity arouse the jealousy aud
the envy. and perhaps. also to GER
tain extent, the dread of many foreign
governments Some OF these things
tend to prejudice some foreign gov
and other OF theSe things
tend to prejudice other foreign govern
ments against the ideas and interests
OF the United States
In view OF these facts the Inn
propriety Of submitting matter SO
intimately involving American inter-
ests an the Panama canal question to
foreign and selfishly Interested arbi-
tration is evident. In addition to which
Senator Root. who IL chief American
at The Hague, has been
the chief attorney for the foreign in
Ieresta In the United States senate dur
Ing this Panama canal discussion.