Imperial Valley press., 1912-12-17
Tho British Protest

Washington probably understands Brit
! ish diplomatic methods well and when
| II believes Great sBritain's protest
against the Panama canal act is mere
| ly bluff" it is more likely to be cor
rect in its views than are some Of
those who make much of the protest.
| The diplomacy Of Great Britain is re-
garded by most of the countries of
| Europe and by many persons here as
insincere, and it is certain that Eng
1 and has gained much in her intercourse
with other nations by "hluffing." The
news from Washington is that Great
! Britain does not expect her protest TO
avail much. and this gives color to the
view that she made her protest mere
ly to see if she could not gain some
thing by making it, rather than from 4
we'll grounded belief in the Justice Of
her position.
In her protest England objects 10
the exemption of American coastwise
vessels from canal tolls and to the eX
clusion of vessels owned by railroads,
and claims that any dispute as to the
meaning of the treaty is a proper sub
ject for arbitration. The dispute over
the exemption of our coastwise yes
sells is the most important. II IS
claimed that if is discrimination in
our favor such as the wording of the
treaty forbids as against British YES
3sels The language Of the treaty does
not forbid this exemption, and il would
seem that English diplomats should
have been sufficiently watchful Of their
interests when they signed the treaty
| provide, il that were possible, against
such exemption. The contention that
the country which has gone to the ex
penss of building the canal and which
! will have to maintain it should place
her own interstate commerce on a par
with that Of Great Britain argues q
lack of plain business sense. As TO
| the objection that the prohibition of the
| canal to vessels owned by railroads
is discrimination against Canadian
vessels, it is illogical. By this portion
| OF the act, our own vessels are GER
| tainly placed upon a par with Cana
| dian and other ships. Our vessels and
Ethose of Canada may use the canal on
Ethe same basis in this respect. The
Interpretation Of disputed meanings Of
Iportions of the treaty is, it seems to
| US, matter to be settled by the parties
to the treaty themselves. If they can
not agree. the treaty, or at least the
1 disputed portion Of it, falls to the
| ground, unless both are willing to sub
| init the dispute to arbitration.
| In the talking and writing of those
whO support the view that the treaty
| binds US to admit British vessels TO
the use of the canal on the same terms
as our own, there is much prating of
honor" These opponents Of the Pan
anna canal act assert that we dishonOr
ourselves by the exemption Of our
coastwise vessels from tolls. They
seem to forget that men of ability and
Of the highest integrity on both sides
of the water assert the correctness Of
our position. Since it is a matter Of
dispute, it We're in better taste to re-
frain from calling the opposite view
Edishonest. American diplomacy has
been Of the highest order Of integrity,
whatever else it may have been. It
must be admitted that the same can
not be said Of British diplomacy We
can find no warrant for accusing Presi-
| dent Taft or his advisers or congress
| Of dishonesty in passing the Panama
canal act. as it reads at present. We
4 must cOncede that it represents their
honest Interpretation Of the treaty, and
finally it should not be forgotten tha.
there has been for a decade or more
\ past great deal Of Anglomania in this
country. Hands across the sea-" "the
ties Of blood" and like phrases have
4 been worked hard, and there are those
who think that any British view is the
fcorrect view. 1t may be that there is
4 some of this Anglomania behind the
ranting about "honor" But whether
there is or not, we believe our states
men Of the present day as honest as
are those Of Great Britain, nOtwith
standing the tendency of some in This
n country to apotheosize the latter. Di-
plomacy is a game and the stand OF
the English in athletic contests against
the athletes of other nations, an exam
pie Of which occurred no longer ago
than the time Of the Olympic games
tOf this year, does not warrant us IN
eHking without investigation the asser-
4 tions or the claims Of her diplomats
II is frequent assertion that the Eng
lish are fair when they are winning
but not 80 fair when skill or fortune
fsvOrS their adversaries.