The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1912-12-14

terms OF entire equality, so that there
shall be no discrimination against such
nations. II Is said the presidents
statement OF the case is wholly at
variance with the real provisions when
he treats the words "all nations" as
excluding the United States because
II had constructed the canal on it's
own territory and thereby acquired an
absolute right Of ownership. includ-
Ing the right to allow its own COM
merce to use the canal upon such
terms as II saw fit
They (the British government)
consider" says Sir Edward Grey that
by the Clayton-Bulwer treaty the
United States had surrendered the
right to construct the canal and that
by the Hay-Pauncefcte treaty they
recovered that right upon the foot
Ing that the canal should be opened
to British and United States vessels
upon terms of equal treatment. II
the rule set out in the Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty secures to Great Britain no
more than most-favored nation treat
ment the value of the consideration
given for superseding the Clayton
Bulwer treaty Is not apparent to his
majesty's government. Nor Is it easy
to see in what way the principle of
article VIII Of the Clayton Bulwer
treaty. which provides for equal treat
ment Of Great Britain and United |
States ships has been maintained"
The argument advanced in the |
United States senate that the words |
''all nations" can not include the |
United States. which would otherwise |
be prevented from using it's own ter
ritory for revictualing it's warships
of landing troops Is briefly dismissed
by the statement that it is completely
overturned by a reading of the Hay
Pauncefote treaty in connection with
the Suez canal conventions. As the
United States did not own the canal
zone when the y-Pauncefote treaty
was made. 1t did not include the Suez
canal rules which recognized the right
Of Turkey. the local sovereign, and OF
might be necessary for the defense Of
Egypt. to take such measures as
their possession.
The note continues:
Now that the United States has
become the practical sovereign Of the
canal his nlajesty's government may
not question its title to exercise bel
iigerent rights for it's protection"
The next point made l. That OK
Of American coastwlse ship
pins from tolls would violate The un-
dertaking that the tolls should De
Just and equitable" Unless the whole
volume OF shipping passing through
the canal is taken into account, the
note says. there are no means Of de-
termining whether the tolls charged
upon any particular vessel represent
a fair proportion Of the current ex-
pense chargeable against the canal.
Therefore. the British gvernment is
entitled Ito demand. on behalf Of the
British shipping. that all vessels pass
ing through the canal. whatever their
flag or character. shall be taken into
account in fixing the amount of the
tolls.
Regarding the presidents conten-
ton that the effect of the British
claim would be to prevent the United
States from aiding its own commerce
in a way that all nations may freely
do. 1t Is said. that this is not so.
Equal treatment as specified in the
treaty is all that the British govern
ment claims. But it does not follow
that the United States may not be
debarred by the treaty from granting
a subsidy to certain shipping in "a
particular way II the effect would be
to impose upon British or other for
eign shipping an unfair share OF the
burden of the upkeep of the canal or
to create discrimination or preiu-
dice to British shipping rights.
Therefore, il is held that eXemp-
tion OF American coastwise shipping,
as well as Of Panama shipping, clear
ly conflicts with the treaty guaran-
ties Of equal treatment for British
and American ships and that foreign
nations would thereby seriously be
injured In two respects-hrsi, in
placing the entire cost of building
the canal upon foreign vessels, ana.
second, in placing American coast
wise trade in a preferential position |
as regards other shipping
h. h..4