The Washington herald., 1912-08-25

the free navigation OF the Suez Canal.
that Is to say:
Il. The canal shall be free and open
to the vessels Of commerce and Of war
Of all nations observing these rules. on
terms of entire equality. 80 that there
shall be no discrimination against any
such patton. or its citizens or subjects.
in respect of the conditions or charges of
traffic, or otherwise. Such conditions
and charges Of traffic shall be Just and
equitable"
Then follows five other rules to be OBJ
served by other nations to make neutral
,, ization effective, the observance of which
is the condition for the privilege of US
ing the Canal.
I'm view of the fact that the Panama
Canal is being constructed by the United
States wholly at It's own cost upon ter
ritory ceded to 1t by the Republic Of
Panama for that purpose. and that un-
less II has restricted itself the United
States enjoys absolute rights OF owner
| ship and control, including the right to
allow its own commerce the use of the
Canal upon such terms at 1t sees Mt,
the sole question is, has the United States
in the language above quoted from the
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, deprived itself
Of the exercise OF the right TO pass its
own commerce free or to remit tolls
collected for the use OF the Canal
Canal Shall BE Neutral.
1T will be observed that the rules
specified in article Of the treaty were
adopted by the United States for a spe-
cific purpose. namely. as the basis of
the naturalization Of the canal and for
no other purpose. The article is a
declaration of policy by the United
States that the canal shall be neutral;
that the attitude Of this government to-
ward commerce of the world is that all
nations will be treated alike and no dis
elimination made by tie United States
against any one of them observing the
rules adopted by the United States. The
right to the use OF the canal and to
equality OF treatment in the use depends
upon the observance of the conditions of
the use by the nations to whom We ex-
tended that privilege. The privileges of
all nations to whom We extended the
use upon the observance Of these con-
ditions were to be equal to that extended
to any one OF them which observed the
conditions. In other words. II was con-
ditional favored-nation treatment, the
measure of which, in the absence of ex-
press stipulation to that effect. is mot
what the country gives to its own ma
tionals, but the treatment II extends to
other nations.
Thus II will be seen that the rules
are but a basis OF naturalization. intend
ed to affect the neutrality which the
United States was willing should be the
character OF the canal and not intended
to limit or hamper the United States in
the exercise Of its sovereign power to
deal with its own commerce using its own
canal in whatever manner 1t saw fit
IF there Is difference in principle be-
tween the United States charging tolls
to its own shipping only to refund them
and remitting tolls altogether as the
British protest declares. then the ire
sistible conclusion is that the United
States, although its own, controls and
has paid for the canal. is restricted by
treaty from aiding its own commerce in
the way that all the other nations of the
world may freely do.
1T would scarcely be claimed that the
setting out in a treaty between the
United States and Great Britain OF GER
tain rules adopted by the J--ited States
as the basis OF the naturalization of the
canal would bind any government to do
or refrain from doing anything other
than the things required by the rules
to insure the privilege OF use and free
dom from discrimination.
Since the rules do not provide a
condition for the privilege Of use upon
equal terms with other nations that
other nations desiring to build up a par
ticular trade involving the use OF the
canal shall not either directly agree to-
pay the tolls or to refund to its ships
the tolls collected for the use of the
canal. II is evident that the treaty does
not affect that inherent. sovereign right.
is not likely-it be claimed
that the PRONUNCIATION by the United
States of these rules insuring all ma
tions against its discrimination would
authorize the United States to pass upon
the action of other nations and require
that no one of them should grant to
its shipping larger subsidies or more
liberal inducement for the use of the
canal than were granted by others. In
other words, that the United States has
the power to equalize the practice Of
other nations in this regard.
May Regulate Commerce.
IF 1t is correct, then. to assume that
there is nothing in the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty preventing Great Britain and
the other nations from extending such
favors as they may see fit to their ship
ping. using the canal and doing 1t in
the way they see fit, and IL 1t is also
right to assume that there Is nothing
In the treaty that gives the United
States any supervision over or right
to complain of such action, then the
pEOtest 10 dDSuEu
that this government in con-
the canal, maintaining the
canal, and defending the canal. finds
itself shorn of its right to deal with
its own commerce in its own way,
while other nations using the canal in
with American commerce
enjoy that right and power unim-
paired.
The British protest, therefore, is a
to read into the treaty a sur
render by the United States OF its right
TO regulate its own commerce in fits own
way and by its own methods, right |
which neither Great Britain herself nor |
aby other nation that may use the |
canal has surrendered or proposes to |
surrender. The surrender Of this right |
IS not claimed to be in terms. 1t is |
only to be inferred from the fact that
he United States has conditionally grant, |
"a to all the nations the use of the |
,anal without discrimination by the |
United States between the grantees, but |
Is the treaty leaves all nations desiring |
70 use the canal with full right to deal |
with their own vessels as they see fit. |
he United States would only be dis |
against itself IL II were to |
recognize the soundness Of British con-
& ntion.
The bill here In question does not \
positively do more than to discriminate |
n favor of the coastwise trade and the |
British protest seems to recognize a dis 1
inction between such exemption and the |
exemption of American vessels~e engaged |
N foreign trade. In effect, of course,
here is a substantial and practical dif- |
erence. The American vessels in foreign |
rade come into competition with vessels