The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1912-08-14
GrsT OF THE CANAL CONTROVERSY.


ignores the English protest against the exemp-
ton from tolls OF American vessels passing
through the Canal We cannot think that the
President will permit the Immediate independ-
ence incident to hopeless position to lead
him to what would be tantamount TO an In
fringement of the treaty powers of the Senate
To go very briefly into the matter o. the
Csayfon- Batmey and the Huv-Pauncefote treaties
tie former vas ratified at time when the
United States tmtd with respect 10 its
recently promulgated Monroe Doctrine Il arose.
Indeed, out Of what was . practical interior
ence by England with that doctrine through
it, fnsistence on being given the rights OF a
partner In proposed canal construction. The
i6ea being that the canal should be constructed
en- the land of another nation than the United
States. and this country having declared that
ne foreign nation should acquire colonies in
the Western Hemisphere. Englands Interior
snce was equivalent to insstence that the
United States should moi herself directly or
indirectly. exert control outside her own terri
tory without Engands consent and partieipa-
ton. incidentally, moving for thu
ratification OF the treaty was she expectation
that England would to n large extent furnish
the funds necessary for the construction of the
canal
After the, CIGsson-Bn hccr treaty had become
obsolete by reason of by failure OF
the enterprise for which Ii was drawn, the
United States acquired the land on which TO
bald tie canal, and has itself undertaken the
work II will have spent upwards of s4oo. 600 =
600 in It's construction when it shall have been
completed II is building its work on It's
own territory. The Hap-Pduneefots treaty,
which spgsysedes the Clayton. Bngsoer treaty.
provides that the United States shall control
ard make rules for the conduct and manage
ment Of tie canal, II also provides that the
stlps o. all nations shall have the right OF pas
safe. subject 70 such rules, and without dis
examination in favor of either
The point at issue between the United States
End Great Britain therefore SINNERS down 10
the question Of whether or not the clause which
admits the ships OF all nations without dis
csmiBatien refers onls TO those nations which
aceept the rules made by the United States;
or whether it includes. also. tbs nation which
lays down the rules
a namber of papers have had a great deal to
ssy about the honor of this country and It's
obligation to live up TO it's treaty rights Urea
ties however must be considered Historically
Il is necessary to understand what prompted
their making aud the purpose with which they
were drawn. So considered. 1t will be seen
that the Ciagton-BHlrcer treaty has no relation
slap in origin with the Hoy-Paunoefote treaty
which takes its place. The one contemplated
the building by this country. by itself or
Through a corporation, OF q canal on the land
III another nation. The other has TO do with
canal constructed by this nation on It's own
land The contemplated a canal under
the control or protection OF dual nations; the
other waterway under the control of one
nation. and built in that nations territory.
The reason OF the thing. therefore is that the
Hav-Poancefote treaty must be determined in
tire light of practical common sense. So con
strued, il means that this nation guarantees
n the ships or all nations the right OF pas
sage the same terms those of other ma
tons according 10 the rules laid down by the
United States for the government and opera
ton OF the canal.
10 otherwise cOnstrue tue PROVISIONS or the
Hcy-Paancefote treaty would be 10 declare fog
instance, that this country liz bound 10 admit
on an equality with its own ships vessels OF
foreign nations traversing its own territory
BY means of its own waterway:
That every American warship must pay
toll for passage:
That this country must place tax upon rs
ossa vessels for OF The Canal. despite the
fact that foreign countries may remit Panama
Canal tolls to their vessels,
These are some of the reasons Leading Con
gress to look at this spirit OF the canal treaty.
rather than at It's technical letter. But deeper
than any particular argument is the fupda-
mental spirit In which all treaties are con.
ceived: the spirit that tacitly looks to the (
right OF either party to a5rogate convention I
that lis disastrous 10 It's sitar interests We
imagine that the exemption OF tolls for Amerl I
ean ships win never go before the Hdgae. either I
beeaase England will yield as gracefully as
may be- or because this country will take this |
~ sAM ~ aussti0a presented IL not ONE