The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1912-07-13
Great Britain's Bluff.


Great Britain to do, to make representa-
tons through her Acting Ambassador
here pertaining to our rules for the
Panama Canal Were it not that the
British Foreign Office is basing such
a procedure upon the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty, the action would be tsntamount
to minding another nations business.
Mr.. Taft summed up the situa-
ton concisely when he said 1--WE own
the canal Our money built it. We have
the right to charge tolls for its use or
to dispense with them at our own pleas
ure. These tolls must be the same to
all nations, but when dealing with Gus
own ships, the practice of many gov
ernments of substituting their merchant
vessels is 50 well established that a re-
mission of tolls cannot be taken to be
a discrimination in the use of the
canal"
The Hay-Pauncefote treaty, so long
bone of contention between Great
Britain and our government, is purposely
misunderstood by Statesmen who try to
get something for nothing That treaty
stipulateS that "the canal shall be open
to the vessels of all nations observing
the rules laid down by the United
States on terms of entire equality, so
that there shall be no discrimination
in respect to the conditions and charges
Of traffic. Such charges shall be just
and equitable"
This gives to the country the absolute
right to make any discrimination in its
OWN favor. Besides, we have lived up
70 the provisions of the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty which says explicitly that such
rules shall be just and equitable" to
all other nations. This country cer-
tainly is not required to abolish dis
ordinations already existing 1t is the
shipping law and not the proposed canal
act which excludes British shipping
from the advantages enjoyed by our
coastwise trade.
The planned exemption from tolls is
not so much in favor of American
shipping as in favor of shipping be-
tween American domestic ports. And
It is surprising that Downing Street
diplomacy should not be aware of the
TACT that if British or German or
French vessels were lawfully engaged
IN such coastwise traffic they would be
exempt from foliage as well That for
eign bottoms are debarred from this
coastwise trade has nothing to do with
The canal and its rules 1t is the re-
suit of our shipping law which has
been on our statute books a century.
Are We expected to repeal that law on
account of the canal. or to please Great
Britain? Would Great Britain do such
a thing for us?
But this diplomatic protest will have
one wholesome effect. 1t will cause
Congress to make the canal laws so
correct as to international usages that
neither Great Britain nor any other
jealous European nation will have leg
to stand upon for absurd protests. And,
10 conclude, we ask why doesn't Great
Britain look to her own canal laws. Sup
pose we were to dictate to her what to
charge for the Suez Canal passage, or
how much to charge or not to charge
her own bottoms?
The matter is entirely one for Con-
gress to decide, and we cannot sub
scribe even to the contention made BY
some metropolitan, papers that the case
ought to be submitted to The Hague
tribunal. There is nothing to submit
Every nation has the acknowledged
right to do within its own territory
what il pleases. Coastwise traders sail
to and from American ports. That set
ties it Besides, there is our shipping
law, which for a hundred years has been
accepted and obeyed BY all Powers.