The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-12-15
NO ARBITRATION.

NO ARBITRATION.
There is one suTicient objection to submit
ting the question of Panama canal tolls to o
court of arbitration and that is this:
The Issue Is one between the United States
which the question might be submitted would
be composed of parties in interest.
The Washington Star states the case fairly.
1t seems TO us. when 1t says:
THE broad question Is whether the Pan
anna canal under the actual conditions of It's
construction is primarily for the United
States and incidentally for the rest OF the
world; or primarily on aitruistic principles
fer the whole world. including the United
States, and not at all In any special sense for
the particular advantage OF the United States.
Thus all the nations of the world are inter-
ested parties In the issue and cannot sit In
their own case Is the United States to leave
1t to the other nations of the world to say
whether It's four hundred million dollar canal
belongs to 1t and can be used and controlled
by it, or on the strength of an alleged promise
to- Great Britain must be turned over for the
use of all other nations of the world on equal
! terms? Is the United States the owner of the
canal. or an international caretaker without
any special privilege in respect to the canal
except that OF paying for 1t and burdened by
special disabilities in respect to its use?
! Great Britain denies that the United States.
under It's alleged promise contained In the
Hay Paunceforte treaty may not use the canal
ir any way for its special benent. but that the
canal must be used on terms OF perfect equal
lily by the ships of all the world. The promise
lis alleged to have been made to Great Britain.
but what that supposed promise granted 1T
granted to all the world Accordingly all the
world Is interested in a settlement according
to the views of Great Britain. To arbitrate
the question under these conditions 10 to sub
NIT the question to a biased court The set
Element OF the question must be left to the
parties interested as there is no disinterested
party.
Moreover the one point upon which Great
Britain insists is an internal question Great
Britain made several objections last summer
and these objections. with one exception. ac-
cor ding to the Star, have been met.
I'm the canal legislation enacted last sum-
mer the United States refrained from (1) ex-
emption from tolls of American ships en-
gagged in foreign trade; and also refrained
CD from a refunding OF those tolls which
Great Britain thinks would violate the spirit
though not the letter. OF the treaty. The
United States exempted from tolls CD only
, the American coastwise shipping which, as
the British note in effect conceded, violates
neither the letter nor the spirit of the treaty
and is Objectionable only because in Grea,
Britain's opinion the United States Ia incap'
able of applying II In strict accordance with
it's terms and Is impotent to prevent its abuse
i Far from tearing up the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty the United States gave to it excessive
consideration. 1t cancelled the legislative pro
:, posais which Great Britain viewed as violating
either the letter spirit OF the treaty. and in
dol 4 80 even rsfrained from exercising the
privilege. which It possesses in common with
ell the nations OF the world that are to use
the canal OF repaying a trade-promotns
subsidy to It's shipowners the canal tolls OK.
acted from them.
1t is for the United States TO decide whether
1t is capable OF preventing the abuse OF the
privilege 1t grants to coastwise commerce
For Great Britain to affirm that 1t cannot pre-
vent abuse is interesting only as showing
Great Brtain's lack Of confidence in the
abilities OF the United States government and
its own insolence and lack Of courtesy.