The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-09-02
THE PRESIDENT SUMS UP.

|
his position respecting the discussions
of tho relations OF the bill to the Hay
Paunccfote treaty. 1T has been vehe-
mently urged that because one portion
of the treaty provides TINT
The United States adopts as tho basis
| OF the naturalization OF such ship canal
! the following rules, substantially as em-
bodied I'm the convention OF Constantine
| pie signed the 18th Of October. 1883. for
! the free navigation OF the Sucz canal
| that is to say: :
l. The canal shall be free and. open
! TO the vessels of commerce and war
| OF all nations observing these rules. on
terms OF entire equality. so that there
shall be no discrimination against any
respect OF the conditions or charges OF
! traffic or otherwise. Such conditions
and charges OF traffic shall be just and
| equita bic.
Therefore the United States is es'
topped from giving American vessels
any advantage over the vessels of FOR"
cign nations. The Tribupe has argued
heretofore that this declaration alone
is clear to the purport that the United
States guarantees this equality TO the
vessels OF other nations. and does not
include American vessels in that equal
itv of treatment For As tho canal is
exclusively our own, we may do with
ii as we will, bring in the same relation
to all other nations that the Suez Canal
Company is, with respect TO It's own
vessels. But the treaty is to be
taken as whole. and so considered,
the meaning is upmistakablc that the
Tn;t NJ fo snph
an absurd thing as 10 guarantee to build
that canal and pledge itself TO gain
no advantage thereby.
Accordingly. President Taft ICON
tends that as the United States has
constructed the canal solely at its own
cost and on its own territory, made so
By the concession of the State Of Pan
ANA. it has IN view OF that ownership
and sovereignty the primitive and
prima facie right TO allow its own com
mcrce the use of the canal as it sees
fit and on its own terms and that the
anterior treaty cannot abrogate that
right. And he proceeds rs follows, IN
the clincbing of his argument.
III VIII be observed tnal inc rulcs Speci-
fled In Article III. OF the treaty were
adopted by the United States for a spe-
cific purpose, namely, on the basis OF the
naturalization OF the canal and for no
other purpose. The article is d declare
tion of policy by the United States that
the canal shall be neutral; that the at
utude OF this goVernment towards the
commerce Of tho world is that all nations
shall be treated alike and no discrimins-
ton made by the United states against
any one OF them observing the rules
adopted by the United States The
right 10 the use OF tho canal and to equal
ity OF treatment in the use depends upon
the observance OF the conditions OF the
use by the nations to whom we extended
that privilege The privileges OF all ma
tons to whom We extended the use upon
the observance OF these conditions were
10 be equal To. that extended to any one
OF them which observed the conditions,
In other words, II was a conditional Ia
vorcd nation treatment, the measure OF
which. In the absence OF express stipula-
ton 10 that effect. is not what the coun-
try gives to It's own nationals. but the
treatment II extends to other nations.
Thus It is seen that the rules are but
the basis Of naturalization intended to
effect the neutrality which the United
States was willing should he the char
acter OF the canal, and not intended to
limit or hamper the United States in
the exercise of Its sovereign power to
own canal In whatsoever manner It saw
fit
Tt is fortunate in this discussion that
President Taft is great lawyer as well
as great President. And other great
lawyers, some OF whom he has no doubt
consulted on this question, notably Sec
retary of State Knox, agree with him.
The pity is all the greater. therefore.
that the bill passed by Congress did not
include the exemption from tolls Of all
American shipping, as we'll as that en-.
gagged exclusively in the coastwise
trade.
Further continuing the clucidstion of
this question, we note the logic of the
New York Commercial viz: "The
rules then under this construc-
tion are designed solely to affect the
rights Of other nations, between whom
strict neutrality is to be observed They
do not touch the right of this country
TO remit or refund tolls, when and where
il desires TO build up special indus
try This country would in no sense
be authorized to object to foreign
country doing precisely the same thing
IN ltS desire 10 SuDslQlIe 1nnlTPCJlN lt5
own shipping interests, The same logic
would apply iufalliblv TO the right of q
foreign country to object 10 our own re,
mission or rofundinc of tolls, a plea
strengthened By the fact that the Unit
ed States has built tho canal at an enor.
nous cost. If this government is bound
| to permit no discrimination as to tolls
or to their effect on commerce. as a
naked and All enhancing literal fact,
that would imply the conclusion that
we might deny the right of any nation
to grant larger subsidies or moro lib
eral inducement for the use Of the canal
than were granted by another nation.
1t would imply that the United States
has the power TO equalize the practice
of other nations in this respect. The
British claim then, it is contendcd. puts
/ itself IN this dilemma of implication: ::
The United States is constructing the
canal maintaining md defandtpo tho