Arizona republican., 1912-08-30
The Second British Protest Against Discrimination in Favor of American Coast wise Vessels in Use of Panama Canal
MAY BE APPEAL
 TO THE HAGUE
State Department Makes No Statement But Reasons Are Given Showing That There Is Nothing to Be Submitted to Tribunal
ASSOCIATED PRESS p1sPATcHl

WASHINGTON, Aug. 29.-Although the state department will authorize no statement to that effect, it is asserted here that he administration will de- cline to allow the question of the right of the United States to relieve it's own shipping from tolls in the Panama canal to go to arbitration. This position of the government, it is said may not be devloped fully for some time.
 While the British protest, delivered yesterday. clearly intimates a pur- pose to demand an arbitration decision in the event of a more careful study of the Panama canal act brought out an impression that it is in violation of the Hay -Pauncefote treaty. If the usual course of diplomatic exchanges is followed many arguments ana counter arguments will be submitted by both sides before the resources Of diplomacy will be exhausted, thus warranting a demand for arbitration.
 The British foundation for such demand rests upon the broad basis of the two special treaties between America and Great Britain, in addi- tion to the great general convention creating the Hague tribunal, binding all parties thereto to adjust their dis putes by recourse to it's methods. The first of these treaties, the Hay- Pauncefote treaty, in it's third article, declares that there shall be no dis crimination against any of the na- tions obeying the rules of the canal, and in it's fourth article it asserts that no change of territorial sov- ereignty shall affect the obligation of America and Great Britain under treaty. The second special treaty made four years ago, binds each country to submit to the Hague trib- unal any difference that may arise relating to an interpretation of the treaties, provided that they do not affect vital points, or the independence or honor of two parties" On this fact. the British demand for arbitration on such a basis is generally regarded to be sound and beyond discussion. From the American viewpoint, there are many loophOles for escape from the British contention and these may be epected to develop in the negotiations. l In the first place it may be con- 1 tended that the admission of American l coastWise traffic to free passage in 1 the canal constitutes no actual dis l crimination against British shipping | The existing law permits no foreign | bottoms to transport American coast ! wise commerce and British vessels | could not be employed to carry goods | from New York to San Francisco | through the Panama canal even if 1 they were completely relieved from tolls. as will be the American coast 1 ing trade.
 Thus it is figured, it cannot be
 claimed that British commerce would | be affected one way or another by
 this favored treatment of American l ships. Another American argument
 is that owing to the acquisition by America of sovereignty over the canal
 zone. the Hay -Panucefote treaty no longer applies to it, that convention being itself voidable under a principle of international law which makes a
 treaty's life depend upon a continu-
 ance of the conditions upon which it
 was made. Back of this contention.
 however, lies the danger of the loss of the whole naturalization feature of
 the Hay-Pauncefote treaty.
 A third argument against arbitra-
 tion is found in the fact alluded to in
 
 : it be possible to secure unbiased ar
 bitratOrs because every maritime
 country finds it's interest in opposi-
 tion to the American contention of the right to discriminate in the use of the
 canal.
 An avenue of escape if the United States really wishes to avoid arbitra- ton is to be found, it is declared, in , article two of the arbitration treaty
 of 1908, which affords an opportunity 7 to the United States senate to take , hand in the settlement of such an
 issue. That article makes it pre-
 requisite to actual arbitration, that , both sides shall conclude a special , agreement defining clearly the mat , ter in dispute" and this must be ap- q proved by the senate so that if the l senate takes the same view next win
 ter of the predominant rights of
 America in the use of the canal as ii
 did the last session, it may prevent
 arbitration by declining to accept any
 special agreement" satisfactory tC
 Great Britain.
 | -0--
 ! EIGHT HAIIEn OFF