Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-12-11
The Panama Canal Controversy.

90 tenor or purpose
The Panama Canal Controversy.
Great Britain now repeats emphasizes
and Celebrates its protest OF last SUM-
mer in respect to Panama canai Ieslsia-
ton. In it's original note OF protest Oh
July S against certain leglsiatlVe plo-
posals then pending in Congress Great
Britain declared % that the propositlon
to exempt American ships eneaeeu III
foreign trade from payment OF canal toiis
was in clear violation OF the Hay-fauhce-
fote treaty; CO that the proposition 10
levy tolls on American SHIPS ana 'hen
to refund these tolls while perhaps meet
ing the letter Of the treaty was In VIOLA
ton of it's spirit: and CD that the propo-
sition to exempt from tolls American
ships engaged in coastwise trade whlie
perhaps not in violation Of the treaty IL
strictly confined to the coastwlse trace
was Questionable because Great Brltain
did not believe the United States couio
confine such exemption In practice 10 the
coastwise shipping and predicted future
infractions of the treaty from abuse OF
the law.
In the canal legislation enacted last
summer the United States refrained from
Cd exemption from tolls Of American
ships engaged in foreign trade; and also
refrained CD from refunding OF those
tolls which Great Britain thinks would
violate the spirit. though not the letter.
of the treaty. The United States ex-
empted from tolls 60 only the American
coastwise shipping which. as the British
note in effect conceded, violates neither
the letter nor the spirit Of the treaty and
is Objectionable only because in Great
Britain's opinion the United States is
Incapable of applying 1t In strict accord
ance with it's terms and is impotent to
prevent it's abuse.
Far from tearing up the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty the United States gave to it ex-
cessive consideration. 1t Cancelled the
legislative proposals which Great Britain
viewed as violating either the letter or
spirit of the treaty, and In doing so even
refrained from exercising the privilege.
which it possesses in common with all
the nations of the world that are to use
the canal of repaying as trade-promot-
ing subsidy to it's shipowners the canal
tolls exacted from them.
In the interest Of cheap transportation
between its coasts by water and land and
to regulate the monopoly of its transcon-
tinental railroads the United States ex-
empts it's coastwise shipping from pay
ment of tolls by an enactment against
which, under the treaty, no protest can
reasonably lie. Objection to an unobtec-
tionable law on the ground that 1t will be
abused and that the enacting nation will
not be able to prevent its abuse Is at
least premature, and in its slurring impu-
tation of incapacity smacks Of discour-
tesy-
The objection of the United States to
the consideration Of this issue by The
Hague tribunal is not caused by any
doubt as to the merits of its contention.
but by the feeling that under the condi-
tions which surround the controversy the
nations represented at The Hague would
be parties in interest and barred thereby
from sitting in the case. The vital ques-
ton at issue Is whether the United States
made such a treaty promise to Great
Britain without any substantial consid-
Grafton for the promise and without any
mutually of agreement or undertaking.
that its four-hundred-million- canal,
constructed under radically changed con-
ditions across the isthmus on property
exclusively controlled by it, may not now
be used by 1t in any way for its special
and peculiar benefit, either in exclusive
Strengthening of its naval power or in de-
veiopment Of its coastwise commerce, but
must be used on terms Of perfect equal
ity by the ships of war and the ships of
commerce of the nations Of the world. in
Guiding the United States. While the al
legged promise is made to Great Britain
its beneficiaries are not the British alone.
but all the nations Of the world.
The broad question is whether the Pan
anna canal under the actual conditions
of its construction is primarily for the
United States and incidentally for the
rest of the world; or primarily on al
truistic principles for the whole world,
including the United States. and not at
all in any special sense for the particu-
lar advantage of the United States. Thus
all the nations of the world are interest
ed parties in the issue and cannot sit in
their own case. Is the United States to
leave 1t to the other nations Of the world
to say whether it's four-hundred-m million
dollar canal belongs to 1t and can be
used and controlled by it or on the
strength of an alleged promise to
Great Britain must be turned over
for the use Of all other nations Of
the world on equal terms? Is the United
States the owner of the canal, or an in
ternational caretaker without any special
privilege in respect to the canal except
that of paying for 1t and burdened by
special disabilities in respect to its use?
IL the Hay-Pauncefote treaty can be
construed in the manner claimed it must
of course be reconciled before any ship
passes through the canal with the legis-
lation Of the United States regulating the
canals use. But under the circumstances
this harmonizing of differences win more
reasonably be brought about by the abro-
cation or modification of the Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty than by repeal Of our domestic
legislation concerning the reimbursement
OF canal tolls to American ships engaged
in the coast wise trade. The question Is
one 10 be settled by direct negotiation be-
tween the United States and Great Brit
ain. For the reasons suggested its ref
erence to The Hague tribunal Is incon-
ceivaible.
Conservation experts Just now are Civ.
ing a certain amount OF solicitude to the
preservation Of the bull moose.