The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1912-09-06
CANADIAN VIEW OF
THE CANAL TREATY


The Star has received from Mr.. Will |
liam Hooker, now touring the north |
west, a copy of the Vancouver Daily |
News-Advertiser. 1t is a large, hand |
someIy printed and well edited paper. |
and IL 1t is a fair sample Canadian |
Journalism must be of a high order. We
extract from 1t one article which just
at this time Is of considerable interest; |
as IL reflects the opinion of our Can
adam cousins on the recent act of Con-
gress regarding Panama canal tolls.
The Canal and the Treaty
Both branches Of the United States
Congress and President Taft have made
themselves and the nation responsible
for the Panama Act. This measure au-
thorizes the free use of the canal by
United States shipping, and the impo-
sition of tolls on the shipping of other
nations. The United States has made
a treaty with Great Britain agreeing
that ships of all nations shall have the
use of this canal on equal terms The
bill which Congress has passed and
which the president has signed au-
thorizes the violation OF this treaty.
President Taft makes an explanation
giving a meaning to the contract that
was clearly not in the minds of the ne
gotiators, or of the senator's by whom
IT was ratified. The president observes
that the canal is constructed by the
United States on it's own territory, at
it's own cost, and holds 1t absurd that
the nation would not control the tolls
and give itself any advantage that
might be desired. But the president
knows that the soil did not belong to
the United States at the time the agree
ment was made. 1t was secured after
ward by act that some OF Mr..
Tafts countrymen declared TO be an act
of public robbery. The president is
trying to change the treaty by reading
into 1t a state Of affairs that did not
exist when the treaty was made.
When President Mckinley agreed
with Great Britain that the Panama
canal should be used on equal terms
by the ships of all nations, there was
nothing to prevent Great Britain con-
structing this waterway. Britain had
more territorial right than the United
States in the canal zo~e. 1t suited the
United States to construct this water
way and to bargain with the other
country which was in a position to in
tervene. The price which the United
States agreed to pay for the monopoly
of construction was the agreement to
provide an international canal which
all the world should use on equal
terms. This is the agreement which
the president and Congress have decid-
ed to break after the monopoly is sup
posed to have been secured.
The president represents 1t to be in
credible that the country which paid
for the canal should have agreed to
give all countries the use of it on
equal terms. But this equality is guar
anteed on the Suez canal by the nation
which controls the stock a like equal
ity on the Sault Ste Marie canal is
conceded to the United States by the
--cOrS+ifrt which constructed and paid for
the waterway. There is nothing in the
least incredible about any of those
cases. The owners of the canals can
make the tolls so high that they get a
good return for their money, only they
must levy on all countries alike. The
power to fix the tolls made the United
States investment a safe one. That
was all that they then bargained for.
The Panama canal agreement as to
discrimination follows the language of
the Suez canal agreement. No one has
suggested, or ever will suggest, the
presidents Interpretation for the Suez
canal or for the 500 canal. The United
States has specifically claimed and now
obtains absolute equality on the latter
canal
We cannot think that the president
of the United States is sincere in his
statement of the case. He is not sup
ported by Senator Root, the ablest pub
licist In the country. His view is con-
demned by Colonel Roosevelt, who
made Mr.. Taft president and who ac-
quired the canal belt. The most in
nuential journals Of the United States
protest against the breach of faith
which the president has sanctioned
We do not see how President Taft can
believe that he has not sanctioned a
dishonest thing If he shall refuse to
refer the question to The Hague tri-
bunal, under a system of international
arbitration, of which he has been a
persistent advocate among the nations
we shall know for a certainty that he
means the nation to be dishonest.