New-York tribune., 1912-08-11
THE CANAL BILL.

II * unfortunate that the Senate
should have adopted the lsthmlah
Canal bill in fits present form. Ihere
can he no doubt that expedition IN
some RESPECTS is desirable and impera-
tive. But 1t is not necessary to dispose
at once Of all the questions concerning
canal control. II would be Sufficient
to deal with practically undisputed
matters and TO let those which are
highly controversial and which are
more or less involved in uncertainty
wait for further consideration.
Moreover. If Il were deemed httlng
and desirable TO act upon the matter
Of discrimination IN tolls. we might
be content with remitting tolls on
nurely domestic commerce and let uni
form charges be imposed upon foreign
hound vessels. perhaps with an under
standing that these might be refunded
hereafter If it were determined that
exemption could properly be granted
which would he decidedly preferable
90 our having some time 10 pay tolls
which had been improperly remitted'
( The questions Of tolls on domestic and
foreign commerce are obviously quite
separste. There is no reasonable
ground for doubt Of the meaning o1
the -Pauncefote treaty concerning
the latter. while its application 10 the
former is at any rate uncertain. There
Is ground for thinking that Great Brit
ain would acquiesCe in exemption OF
strictly domestic commerce from tolls,
while To ask her to assent to such eX-
cmptlon Of our foreign commerce
would be to ask her 10 sanction viola
ton or modification Of the treaty.
If the bill should be enacted and
become law In It's present form there
would in all probability he an appear
to the tribunal at The Hague. That
we ought not to refuse. The question
belongs TO the very class which Is
most properly arbitrable. If the inter
probation and observance Of interna-
tional treaties are not fit matters for
international adjudication there may
~ we'll be an end Of such tribunals.
Yet i'm the opinion Of some Of the best
International lawyers In the Senate. If
It we're sent to The Hague the verdict
would bc against us, and that not
because Of any prejudice against this
country. but because Of the weakness
OF our case.
It does seem TO he a pity that this
country cannot act with the courage
and do as other nations are doing at
Suez and are planning to DO at Pana-
ma for the attainment Of the very
same end that is had in view in this
legislation. There could he no posi-
ble objection under the Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty to the subsidiZing Of Amer
ican commerce, and to the subsldlzing
Of II on specified routes. That is pre-
cisely what Great Britain and France
and Germany and Russia are doing
and we have an equal right 10 do II
And pecuniarily II would make not the
slightest difference, save IN bookkeep'
fng, whether we exempted our ship
ping from tolls or paid It a subsidy
equal in amount TO the tolls.
The canal ~ an American work and
1t should be or advantage to the Amer
team nation and 10 American shipping
American commerce through the canal
should be encouraged and aided in al
legitimate ways. But also there should
be an honest and loyal observance of
the letter and the spirit Of the Hay
Pauncefote treaty, which IS our title
deed to the right TO construct and
operate the canal, as, Of course OF
all international obligations. Happily
there is reason TO believe. with Presi
dent Taft, that II Is possible to do the
former in entire compatibility and har'
mony with the doing Of the latter, II
only we go about II in the right way
The Senate has not chosen the right
WaV