New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-10-21
canal DISPUTE REEVES
WITH RETURN OF KNOX
Belief in Washington That
Great Britain May Insist
on Arbitration.
u. S. WOULD NOT ACCEDE
State Department Silent, but
Administrators Opposition
Is Anticipated-Bryce to
See Cabinet Head.

Washington. oct 2o.-The return to-
morrow Of Secretary Knox, after an alb
sence OF two months probably forecasts
the early receipt by the State Department
Of further representations from Great
Britain in the controversy over the pro-
posed remission OF tolls TO American
coastwise vessels using the Panama
Canal The British Ambassador has just
retlEned to Washington, and 1t is eN-
pected that he will be among the first OF
Mr.. Knox's callers. The canal cOntro-
versy originated while Mr.. Bryce was on
his Australian trip, and in his absence
representations in behalf OF Great Britain
were made through A. Mitchell lnnes'
counsellor of the embassy here.
Although Ambassador Bryce declines to
discuss Great Britain's intended action, II
is believed here that the British govern
ment is preparing 10 insist that the dis
puted toll question be settled by arbitra-
ton. The whole matter Of the canal bill,
together with the views OF the legal ad-
visers TO the crown on the subject, have
been under consideration by the British
Cabinet, and the latest official utterance
on the subject was made by Sir Edward
Grey. British Secretary or state for For
eign Affairs, wlro told the House OF Com
mons that, other means falling, Great
Britain would ask that ii be referred TO
arbitration.
In these circumstances a formal demand
for the Interpretation OF Article Of the
Hay Pauncefote treaty Is awaited here as
the natural sequence TO the original pro-
test. which gave Secretary Knox some
thing to think about during his long trip
to and from the funeral OF the Emperor
OF Japan. Although the State Depart
nent has authorized no statement 10 that
effect. il f. understood that the admins
tratiOn will decline TO allow the question
to go to arbitration.
President Taft has pointed out that the
rules specified in the article OF the treaty
made a basis for the British protest were
adopted by the United States as Nh"
basis OF the naturalization Of the canal,
and for no other purpose" He argues
that n there is nothing lu the Hay
Pauncefote treaty preventing Great Brit
ain and the other nations from extending
fayors TO their shipping using the canal,
and il there is nothing that gives a."
United States any supervision over or
right 10 complain Of such action. then
the British protest leads 10 the absurd
conclusion that this government which
is constructing the canal, maintaining tn
canal and defending the canal nUds itself
shorn OF ito rights TO deal with It's own
commerce In it's own way, while an other
snatlons using the canal In competition
with American commerce enjoy that right
and power unimpaired"
Mr.. Taft further holds the British pro-
test is. therefore a proposal 10 read into
the treaty a surrender By the United
States Of its right TO regulate It's own
commerce in its own way a right which
neither Great Britain herself nor any
other nation that may use the canal has
surrendered or proposes TO surrender.
II the British demand arbitration. the
demand will be made on the broad basis
Of two special treaties between this coun-
try and Great Britain. I'm addition to the
great general convention creating the
Hague tribunal. But II takes two TO con-
clude an agreement defining the matter in
dispute, and no subject can be- arbitrated
TO which the Senate does not give it's as
sent,