The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-12-07
THE PANAMA CANAL TOLLS.

BY the courtesy Of tho Hon. c.
Variau we have copy Of the Chicag
Legal News containing an argumeu
which is, in fact, a brief. on the Pan
anna Canal enactment Of the special scs
sion of Congress last summer. being :
paper by Mr., c, A.. Hereshoff Bartlett
who is pronounced by the Chicago pape,
an authority on international law. TIL,
paper Of Mr.. Bartlctt's presented tbr
| question from the American standpoint
TO the British public in new light
| and was published in the Novemhe,
Law Magazine and Review Of London
a conservative law journal which is re
garded highly In legal circles abroad
We can we'll imagine that Mr.. Bart
let's paper must have been viewed by
the British legal profession good deal
In the light Of a sensation.
Mr.. Bartlett s first proposition is that
the Panama Canal zone is territory
appurtenent and belonging TO the Init.
ed states by treaty with The Republic
OF Panama, and this zone is as much
and as exclusively the property of The
United States as is Alaska with its
inlets and rivers, and is subject to such
laws as the Congress Of the United
States may make respecting il, "anl
when made. such laws become the sole
and only rule Of action within the ter.
rltory, even superseding the provisions
oil treaty in conflict Herewith. - Ac.
cordingly, our sovereignty and control
over the Panama Canal is supreme, and
is Just as unrestricted as it is over any
OF the waterways Of Alaska. But to saw
that the United States cannot build a
canal In Alaska and establish such tolls
as it chooses for the use of that canal
is absurd.
Next, considering the treaty with
Great Britain, Mr.. Bartlett Quotes the
provision of it in question, and gives
full effect To the language which pro
vldes that "there shall be no discrjmi.
naf1on against any such nation or its
citizens or subjects in respect of the
conditions or charges of traffic or other.
wise" Mr.. Bartlett shows very cop.
clusIvely that the reference herein is
as IRON the United States toward tbo
ships OF any foreign nation: there i no
possibility that the United States. own.
ing and having the complete iurisdic.
ton over the territory in which the ga.
nal IS built, would put any restrictions
upon itself with respect to the pse of
that canal, On this point Mr.. Bartlett
lays down the rule that discriminate tions
whlch are open 10 objection are those
Where persons engage in the same com.
merce and PLY their trade under the
same conditions enjoy different priv
lleges. 1t IS only then that discrimina.
ton can be said To impair The equal
rlSht which all can claim 10 whom il is
accorded by law; and his conclusion is
that There Is no evasion of the rule
of equality where all foreign vessels arc
subject to the same duty and liabilities
under similar circumstances.
Mr.. Bartlett shows that the treaty
could never have been intended to pre-
vent the Federal Government from ar.
ranging and regulating its domestic or
coastwIse commerce, and in the use and
enjoyment of its own property as it saw
ht. Pursuing the point he saws; .sIt
would be absurd for the United States
TO solemnly declare that its own ves-
sells OF war might openly aud freely
navigate It's own landlocked water. !
ways and enjoy the privileges that bc. |
ong to the nation as sovereign pow
er IN the use Of its own territory And |
.he Panama Canal is subject 10 precise. |
y the same jurisdiction and exclusive
control by the United States as il en-
Joys in the exclusive coutrol over IFS /
own estuaries and inland WATERWAYS.
Mr.. Bartlett proceeds further TO dem. |
that there is well.recop. |
nIzed difference between vessels on.
gagged IN the coastwisc trade aud those |
engaged in ovcr-sca commerce. - He |
says that the treaties between the Unit |
ed States and thirty-one countries ex |
pressly recognize this difference. He
SAYS further that similar treaties ne |
,oi atcd by Great Britain recognize pre. |
,iscl' the same difference. aud he shows
further that Great Britain NOT only the