New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-07-13
Wide Divergence of Opinion
Among Public Men as to
Panama Canal Rights.
DEBATE WILL BE EARNEST
Senators Root and Lodge on
Opposite Sides as to Scope
Of the Hay.Paunce.
fote Treaty.
From The Tribune Rnreau !

Great Britain that the Panama Canal hill
disagrees with the Hay auncefote treaty.
especially since such eminent authorities
on international law and the foreign rela-
tons of the United States as Senators
Lodge and Root are on opposite sides OF
the controversy.
Senator Root. whose experience and sue
cess as Secretary of State entitle his opin-
ions to the utmost respect. will set forth
those conditions which led to the making
of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty in manner
which may materially alter the views OF
some who assume that because the United
States owns, in effect at least. the Canal
Zone and has constructed the canal, 1t has
a right to do with its own as It sees fit.
The remark was made by an official of
the Department of State to-day that II sew
eral producers of milk were to agree to sell
their product at uniform price. and enc
Of those producers were to consume be-
cause OF his large family considerably
more than any of the other parties 10 the
agreement il could not be argued that the
agreement was being violated. By the
same reasoning. he held, 1t would be i'm
possible to show that because the United
States favored its own shipping II was
violating an agreement which had TO do
solely with other nations. Such an argu-
n1ent seems 10 some, however, wholly to ig-
more the peculiar conditions which pre-
vailed with regard TO an isthmian canal
from 1850 to 1901. when Secretary Hay sue
ceeded in inducing Great Britain to sub
stitute for the Clayton Bulwer convention
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty.
Terms Of Old Treaty.
BY the Clayton-Bulwer treaty the United
States and Great Britain explicitly bound
themselves never TO use any alliance, con-
nection or influence that either may pos
sess with any state or government through
whose territory said canal may pass for
the purpose Of acquiring or holding. direct
" or indirectly. for the citizens or subjects
Of the one, any rights or advantages In
regard TO commerce or navigation through
the said canal which shall not be offered
on the same terms TO the citizens or sub
tects Of the other"
Both nations bound themselves not 10
fcrtify the canal and not 20 deny 10 the
ether free and untrammeled use Of the
canal in time Of war.
When the time came for the United states
10 construct the Panama Canal the JOINT
agreement embodied in the Clayton-BulWer
treaty stood in the way unless this coun-
try was prepared 10 construct such canal
in partnership. SO II speak, with Great
PrItain. n became the task 81 John Hay.
then Secretary Of state. gently hut hrmly
10 nnannuvre Great Britain into situs-
ton where its position with regard TO the
canal would be at least less commanding
yp this and the
substitution Of the y-Pauncefote treaty
for the clayton Bulwer agreement was gen
orally regarded as n diplomatic triumph ~
more than ordinary moment
AZ was well known 10 those who enjoyed
the confidence Of the Secretary o. State,
the Hav-FauncofotA treaty. when read IN
connection with the diplomatic correspond
erce between Mr. Hay and Lord Lans
downe. which had preceded 81, and which
was confidential until made public in The
Tribune about Z year ago. removed every
obstacle 10 the fertilization OF the canal
while It made possible the construction OF
the waterway under the ownership OF the
United States.
In view OF the language o. the Hay
Pauncefote treaty. however there ~ likely
70 remain in many minds reasonable
doubt az 20 whether Great Britain Intended
thereby 10 ALLEVIATE the privilege which che
had previously held OF enjoying the use OF
the canal for her commerce under pre-
cisely the same terms az the commerce ~
the United States, or whether BY the ian
euaee OF the treaty the United states Sc
cured such alienation SO far IS known
that question was not raised by Lord
Paunoefote or the other negouators. Per
hans Il ia safe surrlise that secretary
Hav ves very thankful II was not he
u-as then engaged in securing the larger
ends and in gently and politely escortlng
the British lion from his seat on the stage
70 one equally coed, Of course, In the
rroscenium box, and he was probably very
erstef,l that the lion did not stop to ask
embarrassing questions about future per
formances.
T, would have been wholly in accord with
the AIplonnacy 81 Mr. Hay TO meet the pref-
ant situation with equal suavity and equal
d,plonscy. and 10 have secured an adjust
rnent of the present question not less IA
vorable to the interests OF the United States
than was the substitution Of the Hay
psuncAfote treaty for its predecessor. IL
might have been, however, less directly
and bluntlv assertive Of American rights
than the declarations Of those who now
assert that as the canal has been con-
str,cted by the United States and IL the
nropertv OF this country, it is not the bust
ness Of any other nation what terms the
United States makes for its use by It's own
ships. provided Of course. Great Britain
and ali other foreign nations are treated
alike.
Question What Is Left
Great Britain unquestonably possessed
certain important equities under the Clay
ton Bulwer treaty. and the question now
arises as TO how far she abrogated those
equities under the Hay-Pauncefote conven-
ton. Some public men. like Mr.. Lodge,
believe Great Britain forfeited all equities
other than a right TO be treated the same
as any other foreign power. Others. like
Representative Sulzer, the Democratic
chairman Of the Committee on Foreign At
fairs. believe that Great Britain has not
only forfeited all rights, but has even con-
coded the right to American statesmen Of
a certain type to do a little tail twisting
on occasion. Still others, like Senator Root,
believe the subject not only deserves the
most careful consideration, but that Great
Britain probably still retains some measure
OF the equities guaranteed 10 her ~ the
Clayton Bulwer treaty.
Under these circumstances the debate IN
the Senate is certain to be most interesting
and informing. especially as the Depart
ment Of State has, officially at least nearly
.sidestepped all responsibility In the matter,
asserting calmly that, as the Senate has
always considered itself amply competent
70 construe treaties and to direct foreign
relations, this occasion affords abundant
opportunity for the demonstration OF its