Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1912-12-12
and how in the face Of that protest the
system was abandoned"
sUEz RULES COMPARED.

SUEz RULES COMPARED.
Referring to 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. 1t Is said that the Presi.
dents statement OF the case as wholly
Mt variance with the real provisions when
he treats the words All nations" as ex-
Guiding the United States because II had
constructed the canal on its own terri
tory and thereby acquired an absolute
right Of ownership.
"They uhc British governmenD consid-
err says Sly Edward. that by the
Clarton-Bulwer treaty the United States
had surrendered the right to construct
the canal. and that by the Hay-Psuncc-
fote treaty the. recognized the right
upon the footing thnt the canal should be
opened TO British and United States vcs-
sells upon terms Of equal treatment. =
II the rules set out ii he Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty secure to Great Britain no
more than most favored nation treat
ment. the value of the consideration given
for superscdng the Cha yton- Buiwer trea-
~ Ia not apparent to His Majestys gov
eminent"
The argument advanced in the United
States Senate that the words all ma
tons" cannot include the United States,
which would otherwise be prevented from
using its own territory for revictualting
its warships or landing troops. Is briefly
dismissed by the statement that 1t Is
completely overturned by reading OF
the Hay-PauncefoNatreaty in connection
with the Sucz canal conventions. AS the
United States did not own the canal zone
when the -Pauncefote treaty was
made. it did not include the Sue1 canal
rules which recognized the right of Tur-
key. the local sovereign. and of Egypt,
to take such measures as might be nee
essary for the defense of her Sir Edward
continues: "\ow that the United States
has become the practical sovereign OF
the canal. His MaJcstys government may
no. question its title to exercise bellig
erent rights for its protection.
MAKES THE UPKEEP GREATER.
tn, next point made is that the cx-
emption Of American coastwiSc shipping
from tolls would violate the undertaking
that tn. tolls should he Just and equit-
able" Tho British government is entitled
"to demand. on behalf of British ship
ping, that ali vessels passing through the
canal sl,ai. b. take n into account in fin
Ing tho amount Of the tolls
ton that the effect Of the British clai,r
will he to prevent the United States
from al ling it's own commerce I'm a
way that all nations may freerly 10
It is said that this is not So Equal
treatment as specified in the treaty is
all that the British government claims.
but it does not follow that the United
States may not be deharred by treaty
from granting subsidy to certain
shipping in II particular way. If .he
effect would he to impose upon Briticn
or other foreign shipping an unfa'.
share Of the burlon Of the upkeep %
the canal. Therefore, it Is held tina,
the exemption OF the American coast
wise shipping. as we'll as of Panamar
shipping clearly conflicts with the
treaty guarantees OF equal treatment
for British and American ships and
that the interests of foreign nations
would thereby be seriously injured IN
two respects; First in placing the en-
tire cost of the building of the canal
upon foreign vessels and in the second
place, in placing tnc American coast
wise trade in preferential position
as regar! Is other Shipping These Al
verse results would fall moro severely
on British shipping than any other.
In conclusion. Sir l.. lward reito~a.es
his governments assertion that the
provisions Of tho canal act as to tolls
conflict with the British treaty rights
and adds. - reference to arbitration
would be rendered unnecessary if the
government Of the United states SHOULD
be prepared to take sucn steps rs
would remove the objections TO the
act which Ills Majesty's government
have stated"