The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-08-21
COURT TEST OF THE TREATY.

4
position and rights of the United States
ms to tho Panama Canal was desirable
Under the old Clayton Bulwcr treaty
/ the United States could do nothing,
Secretary Hay undertook 10 obtain q
free hand for The United States TO
build. own, and operate tho canal with
ont any interference from Great Brit
ain, no othor power having any treaty
with us which would give it any rights
whatever in the premises. The first
treaty negotiated by Secretary Hay
with the British ministry was supposed
Clayton Bulwer entanslemcut But the
Seuate did not consider that it did so as
fully as desired. aud consequently that
treaty was rejected BY the Senate. Fur
ther negotiations resulted in the rati6-
cation of treaty which was held by
the Senate to give complete freedom TO
the United States in building. operat-
ing and managing the canal
That treaty provided among other
things. that there should be no discrim-
charges therefor. that all nations should
be treated alike. The claim is made
that tho term "all nations included
the United States. This seems to us to
be an absurd claim. The United States
builds the canal, manages 1T, pays all
the expenses, and says TO all nations
that they will be treated alike IN its
use. Mspifestly, however, the United
States, the owner, does not include 1T
self in the term Of ''all nations In
ownership gives rights that are para
mount. There was no compulsion upon
the United States to build that canal.
There is DO obligation on the part OF
the United States to throw the canal
open for traffic at all. 1t can, if it
pleases, leave the canal unfinished and
impossible of operation, and no nation
would have any right to complain,
Other portions Of the treaty, such as
that which requires that the canal shall
be kept open in time Of war to all ma
tions, including their war vessels would
mean on the British Interpretation that
the United States would be obliged to
send through the canal the warships of
any nation with which we might be at
war; as. for instance, If japanese
fleet should appear at the Pacific end
of the canal. Japan being at war with
the United States, this country would
nave to open the canal to that feet,
even though its purpose was to ravage
our Gulf and Atlantic Coast. Such an
Interpretation as that is not only alb
surd, it is impossible.
Still. since the claim is made, il is
desirable, as stated. to have some trib
unal settle the question. Manifestly 1T
would not do to leave the case to arbl-
tration at The Hague tribunal, because
the adiudicators there would all be
against us through their natural IN
stincts and interests. 1t would be to
the interest of every other power to
humble the United States IN this re-
spect, and to enforce the proposition
that we are obliged TO come into the
pool Of all the nations in the use of the
canal, even though we alone have built
and own and operate 1T. President Taft,
seeing this difficulty, makes the happy
proposal that Congress, by joint reso-
luton, shall admit a suit against the
United States in our Supreme Court to
settle the Interpretation of the true
meaning of the wording of this treaty
with Great Britain, The Supreme Court
of the United States is tribunal OF
such dignity. impartiality. and learning
that any nation feeling itself aggrieved
through any restriction or partiality Of
the United States for its own people
and it's own commerce, need have no
hesitation in bringing a suit to vindi-
cate whatever claim it may have in the
premises. II is au excellent practical
suggestion In every way, and the Presi-
dent shows a mind of great constructive
capacity and of broad scope in making
the suggestion. We trust that Congress
will accept the President S suggestion.
and thereupon so amend the proposed
legislation with respect to the canal as
to allow Of the free passage by all
American vessels. this primarily because
it is right. aud sccondarily because it is
desirable TO obtain a calm and decisive
judicial Interpretation of the meaning of
the treaty, and in no impartial manner
can the United States obtain such an
Interpretation otherwise than through
our own Supreme Court