New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-12-11
THE BRITISH CANAL NOTE.

Sir Edward Grey's note protesting
| against certain features Of the Panama
Canal act displays grateful contrast
in tone 10 some less considered and
less responsible utterances hitherto
made. 1t does. indeed. charge viola
ton of the y-Pauncefote treaty,
but it does so in the spirit OF one who
seeks Cancellation rather than conten-
ton. We regret TO find it married by a
few errors of fact. such as the assump-
ton that American coastwise vessels,
while enjoying as such exemption from
tolls, might without hindrance or pen
| atty also engage Ia foreign traffic,
when as a matter of fact vessel thus
offending would under United States
law be subject to seizure and forfeiture,
with all its cargo. Nevertheless, the
| note is TO be welcomed as distinctly
| helping 10 promote a simplification OF
the issues in controversy and prompt,
equitable and amicable settlement Of
them.
The issues are practically reduced to
two. Of which one is merely condition
al. The first IS the justice Of the tolls
which are 10 be charged. Sir Edward
Grey comedies, Of course, the right OF
the United States to subsidize its own
commerce. and it is obvious that the
existence Of that right implies the
further right to subsidiZe il to any
amount. whether more or less than n
precisely the same as the canal tolls.
That is right which ought never to
have been questioned by any one. But.
he argues. the exemption OF part or
our commerce from tolls, whether d.
rectly or indirectly through refunding
the tolls in the form Of a subsidy,
would Impose upon British shipping
IAN unfair share Of the burden of the
"upkeep OF the canal" From that we
must dissent. 1t would be so, no doubt,
II the entire cost Of upkeep were to
be thrown upon the shipping which
traversed the canal. But that will not
be the case. The tolls will be fixed
not by the cost Of operation and main
tenance. but simply on the basis OF
what the traffic will bear" They will
thus at first by no means cover the
cost. and the deficiency, which may be
large. will be paid by the United States
government. We may not and do not
regard it as good public policy to sub
sidize and practically to exempt from
tolls a part Of our commerce which
needs no such favor, and thus. to throw
an added burden upon the country.
But If the country is content to pay
out Of the Treasury for operating the
canal instead of making coastwise
commerce pay It's share toward IT. we
cannot see that any other country has
cause TO complain. The point IS that
the tolls as now prescribed are Just
and equitable, as the treaty requires
them to be- and are as low as they
would be If our coastwise commerce
were compelled to pay them the same
as all the rest. That is sufficiently in
dicated by the fact that the tolls at
Panama are the same as those at Suez,
although the cost Of passing ships
through the former canal will be much
greater than il is through the latter;
and also by the fact that they will
be less than one-third Of what COM
merce is actually now paying for pas
sage across the isthmus. If there is
any discrimination" in the case IL Is
against our own Treasury and taxpay-
ers and not against British shipping.
The other issue is that OF the exclu-
sion Of railroad owned ships from the
canal Sir Edward Grey is not sure
whether that applies to Canadian as
well as American ships, but il il does
he reserves the right to examine fur
Their into that phase Of the case with
a view TO possible protest. We doubt
If he, would find any ground for taking
exception to the law II 1t were thus
interpreted. He argues with much
force that the phrase 'all nations" In
the y-Pauncefote treaty means
what II says, and includes, as the
actual makers fsthat treaty undoubt-
eddy understood. the United States as
well as other nations. But, il so. to
object to the application Of the railroad
exclusion clause OF the law To Cana
dian railroads and their shipping
-----------