The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-08-19
THEIR FRUITLESS SULKS.

We see it stated that Great Britain
is liable to be in the sulks so far AS
the Panama Canal exposition at San
| Francisco is concerned because the
! United Sta es docs not defer TO the
British view RS to the management Of
that canal and the tolls to be charged.
Canada is also stated to he sulking
about it, and statement comes that
the Canadians will boycott the Canal
exposition II that is 10 he the case.
both will be the losers; for il cannot
reasonably be expected that the United
States will change its canal policy
merely to allow Canada and Great
Britain to make their exhibits at the
canal exposition. which ought to be so
decidedly advantageous 10 their own in.
tcrcSts.
SO far as Great Britain is concerned
it is announced that there will be no
demur on her part against the Panama
Canal bill ms now agreed upon in the
conference between the two Houses Of
Congress. II is a clear case that Great
Britain would have no possible ground
to oppose free tolls for the coastwisc
trade Of the United States. since Brit
ish vessels arc not allowed to engage
in that trade. Consequently there would
here be no possible chance Of objection
on her part.
AS we look at the treaty, there is no
real ground for opposing free tolls at
the canal for all ships of American reg
istry; but by. reason of wrongly-read
clause in the treaty, there has grown
mp In this country considerable senti-
ment to the effect that the United
States is not entitled under that treaty
TO any advantage in the canal in the
general opensea trade by way Of re-
mission of tolls for American sea going
ships We are not able to see the force
treaty. Even the clause indicated. rea.
sonably interpreted, would mean that
the United States simply agrees that
there shall be no discrimination as be-
tween foreign vessels in the tolls and
regulations governing the operation of
the canal. Clearly the United States,
which has built the canal, is entitled TO
all the privileges of ownership. and can
send its own vessels through on such
basis as it sees fit
Reading the treaty as n whole. how
ever, there would appear to be no pos
siblc ground for the claim that the
United States is not al liberty TO favor
vessels flying her own flag in the Pan
ANA Canal trade; for any other con-
struction would compel the United
States to pay tolls on its own naval
vessels passing through the canal; such
construction would also oblige the
United States to put through the canal
on precisely such terms as it does its
own fighting ships, the fighting ships of
any other nation. even though we
might he at war with that nation. Thus,
on the Interpretation proposed. if we
were at war with Japan, and a Japan
csc fleet should present itself at the
western end of the canal demanding
transmission through. it would be
our boundeu duty under that treaty
to forward those ships through the
canal, even though their avowed object
were to attack our own Eastern coast
cities.
Such is the drastic Interpretation
that must be placed upon that treaty
lf we allow the claim of Great Britain,
and OF those in this country who sup
port the British claim, to equal treat
ment for all foreign vessels with our
own in the matter Of tolls and in all
other respects.
But with respect to the sullSing or
Great Britain and Canada In regard 10
the Panama Canal exposition. they are
at liberty, Of course, to sulk as long as
they like, for it would be ridiculous to
give that sulklng any influence or effect
in our own canal legislation.