Arizona republican., 1912-08-21
Why Should We Fear?


 There ought to be no objection by 1he congress to the proposal of the president to incorporate in the canal bill provision for the testing before American courts by foreign steamship companies of the right of this coun- try to discriminate in favor of Ameri- can vessels in the coastwise trade. If We are afraid to trust the establish ment of our rights to our own courts We must doubt whether they are founded on valid claims.
 If we do not go back very far. of course. We cannot see that there is anything to be adjudicated and it would therefore appear that the presi- dents proposal is useless. This gov ernment has constructed the canal solely at it's own great expense. It acquired the site for it at an enormous cost. No other nation seems to have made the investment of dollar in the great enterprise
 Yet. long before the canal was pro- posed. before the promulgation of the Monroe doctrine which, however, has nothing to do with the matter in con- trOversy. when, yet, the United States had not acquired possession of half the territory lying between the Mexi- can and Canadian lines. England claimed certain rights in the isthmus and they have never been disputed. On the contrary, we have put our selves in the position of recognizing them. But they appear to have been rather indefinite. The Clayton Bulwer treaty attempted to give them defin- iteness. They were made sufficiently clear for all purposes at that time.
 But it was seen subsequently, that points were arising which had not been covered by the treaty. While the isthmian canal had been a dream, the dream at last seemed to begin taking shape. The old treaty required interpretation which was given it in the Hay -Pauncefote treaty which was then regarded as clear enough but within a little more than a decade matters which escaped the attention of the astute negotiators of that con- vention have forced themselves to the front.
 At first it was not certain whether under the treaty the United States had a right to fortify the canal and it has not yet been determined whether we have such right. But it was evident that somebody must have power to do it and England waived any objection she might have had, SC that that is no longer a question.
 But Great Britain lodged "a forme protest against the free toll provision of the pending canal administration bill. This protest was made on prin- ciple rather than with the expectation or the desire of gaining any material advantage for in the nature of things coastwise trade would be carried on by American vessels even though there were no discrimination.
 However. the question of the valid ity of our right to discriminate ir favor of American vessels was raised and eminent American lawyers arc inclined to the English view that wt have no such right under the treaty The ablest lawyers of the senate, we believe are of the opinion that tha proposition is in violation of the term: of the treaty.
 Whether we have that right undel the treaty, as patriotic Americans, w believe we have moral right and nc doubt that would be ultimately con ceded in regular way. We cannO take such a right by force any more than we can violate a law We have enacted simply because in the light o experience or in new exigencies, WI believe it to be an inconvenient law We must get rid of it in a regula way
 As the president stated fin his spe ciaI message of Monday we ought t assure our neighbors of our good faitl to the extent of manifesting a willing ness to submit our claims to an Amer jean tribunal