New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-07-12
ENGLAND AND THE CANAL.

| The brief explanatory communication
sent by the British Charge d'Affaires to
the State Department yesterday indi-
Gates that the British exceptions to our
pending isthmian canal legislation relate
to the proposed exemption OF American
coastwise traffic from tolls, to the eI-
clusiOn Of railroad-owned ships from the
canal and to the tentative exemption
| from tolls OF American ships subject to
being taken by the government in an
emergency.
There can be no question that the
Hay-Pauncefote treaty gives the United
States the right to make any rules and
regulations, including tolls, for canal
traffic that may seem good to IT, the only
stipulatlons being that all rules shall
apply equally to the shipping Of all ma
lions and that the tolls shall be just and
equitable. Now, waving the contention
that the stipulation Of uniformity refers
only to other nations, this country being
free to make any discrimination I'm It's
own favor, 1t is difficult 10 see In what
way either of the proposed regulations
would conflict with those provisions Of
hibited from creating new discrimina-
tons, but it is certainly not required to
abolish Determinations already and for
long time existing. 1t is the shipping
law Of the United States and not the
proposed canal law which excludes Brit
ish shipping from whatever advantages
are enjoyed by our coastwise trade. The
proposed exemption from tolls is not in
favor Of American shipping per sc, but in
favor Of shipping plying between Ameri-
can ports If British or other foreign
vessels were engaged in traffic between
American ports they would be entitled
to the exemption just as much as Ameri-
can coasters. The fact that they are de-
barred from such traffic and therefore
from such exemption is the result Of our
shipping law, century old. We cannot
be expected to repeal that law on ac-
count Of the isthmian canal and It can
scarcely be demonstrated that there can
be discrimination against one thing and
in favor of another when the two do not
and for antecedent causes can not come
into competition.
The other potential provision Of the
bill, excluding railrOad-owned ships from
the canal, Is as yet Of too uncertain
standing to merit very serious considera-
ton. The Senate committee has already
materially changed it from the form in
which it was passed by the House ard
further changes are not improbable. But
If it should be adopted in such a form
as to exclude all railroad-owned ships
from the canal we cannot see that It
would violate the principle of entire
equality among nations which Is estab-
lished in the treaty. 1t would exclude
ships owned by British or Canadian
railroads and those owned by American
railroads alike. There would be no dis
elimination. There is, Of course, the adj
ditional question whether the charges
proposed are just and equitable, as the
treaty provides they must be- and it
might be possible to stretch that require
ment so as TO cover all rules and regula-
tious as well as the tolls. Even so, IL
would be difficult matter to prove that
the proposed exclusion was unjust or IN
equitable.
1t would be an extraordinary thing for
such representations to be made concern