New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-12-10

Washington. Dec. s.-Sir EDWARD NLe!
begins Great Rritains formal note OF pro-
test against that section OF the Panama
Canal act which eXempts American coast
wise shipping from payment OF tolls ioI
passing through the Panama Canal WIN
the statement that the President does not
fully appreciate the British point OF view
and has misunderstood even the note OF
July s. f.
The purpose of the United States in
Negotiating the Hay-Pauncefote treaty
was to recover their freedom Of action
and obtain the right which they had sur
rendered in the Clayton BuIwer treaty to
construct the canal themselves But this
complete liberty of action was TO be linn
tied by the maintenance OF the complete
principle Of equal treatment for both
English and United States ships. Ihe
word naturalization" in the preamble OF
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty is not con-
fined TO belligerent operations. but refers
10 the system of equal rights for which
Article provides. .-.
Joint protection and equal treatment
are the only matters alluded to, to which
that naturalization must refer. III GER
tsinly was not the intention OF the
United States government says Sir Ed
ward Grey, that any responsibility for
the protection Of the canal should attach
TO them in the future. Naturalization
therefore, must refer to the system of
equal rights"
The note then declares that the situa-
ton created BY the substitution of the
Hay-Pauncefote treaty for the Clayton
Bulwer treaty was identical with that re-
sultIng from the boundary waters treaty
of 1909 between Great Britain and the
United States. which in brief provided
that the boundary waters should be free
and open 20 commerce. applying equally
and without discrimination TO the in
habitants, ships, vessels and boats OF both
countries but all such rules and
regulations and all tolls charged shall
apply alike to the subjects or citizens Of
the high contracting parties. and they
shall be placed on terms OF equality In the
use thereof"
American Protest Recalled.
II is also asserted that similar, though
more restricted. provision appeared in the
treaty Of Washington, and Il is recalled
how strenuously the United states pro-
tested, as a violation Of equal rights.
against the system which Canada had in
troduced OF a rebate OF a large portion OF
the tolls on certain freights on the Wei
land Canal. and how IN the face OF that
protest the system was abandoned"
Referring 10 the third article OF the
Hay. Pauncefote treaty, the note points
out that the first OF the suez Canal rules,
which the treaty adopts for the Panama
Canal. is that the waterway shall be free
and open TO the vessels Of commerce and
war OF all nations, observing the rules on
terms Of entire equality. so that there
shall be no discrimination against any
such nation.
II is said that the Presidents statement
OF the case 10 wholly at variance with the
real provisions when he treats the words
"ali nations as excluding the United
States because 1t had constructed the
canal on its own territory and thereby ac-
ouired an absolute right Of ownership, in
Guiding the right 20 allow its own com
merce the use OF the canal upon such
terms as II saw III. Sir Edward adds;
They Cthe British government consider
that by the Clay Bulwer treaty the
United States had surrendered the right
70 construct the canal, and that by the
Hay. pauncefote treaty they recovered
that right upon the footing that the canal
should be opened TO Brltisn ana United
states vessels upon terms OF equal treat
uent. II the rules set out In the
JIay-Pauncefote treaty secure to Great
Britain no more than most-favored-na-