Atlanta Georgian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1912-1939, 1912-09-06

the rights of the United States in
the Panama canal to arbitration at
The Hague tribunal is to submit
question of vital Importance to the
United States to the representa-
tives of nations whose interests are
directly opposed to the interests Of
the United States.
In the first place, the majority Of
the powers represented at The
Hague tribunal are European and
Asiatic powers-un American pow
ers-and those foreign powers have
ideas of government and of social
and political rights opposed to those
of the United States.
In the second place these foreign
powers have as rule actual ma
terial interests diametrically OPP
posed to those of the United States.
The Hague court is essentially a
foreign court in its constituent
parts and in it's sympathy and SEN
timcnt. Therefore, questions which
are Immediately and peculiarly
American can not be safely sub
mitted to it.
There is no better illustration of
this fact than the one to be de-
rived from the Panama canal ques-
ton. The United States built the
canal after a European nation had
failed to build it. The United States
built the canal entirely with its
own money and with its own efforts
and enterprise The United States
acquired finally as it's own aoso-
lutte property the territory through
which the canal zone passes.
Is Part of United States.
The canal zone, therefore, is as
much possession of the United
States as the District of Columbia,
in which the capital at Washington
is situated. The canal is a domes-
tic possession of the United States
and our property rights in the canal
are fully established by purchase.
Foreign nations desire certain
privileges in the canal Shall the
United States submit the question
of how many privileges foreign ma
tons shalr have to an arbitration
board composed in its large ma
jority of the representatives of the
foreign nations interested?
Would a dispute between capital
and labor be submitted for arbitra-
ton to a board composed mainly of
capitalists; or. on the other hand,
to board composed mainly of la
Dor men? If q farmer had a dis
pute about the ownership of a Ger
tain portion OF his farm would he
submit that dispute to the decision
of the other claimant to the land?
1t is obvious that American inter
ests could not receive fair consid-
Grafton from The Hague tribunal in
FL the matter of this Panama ques-
ton.
1t is probably true that no ques-
ton involving distinctly American
interests or American ideas or
American points of view would re-
ceive altogether just treatment
from this characteristically foreign
court. The United States is a mill
tant republic, and its success as a
republic is a perpetual impeach-
ment of dynastic and despotic
forms of government. The United
States is an extremely progressive
country, and its ideas. its govern
mental attitude. its fundamental
principles. arouse the prejudices
and opposition of most European
and Asiatic governments. The
United States is a very prosperous
and powerful country, and it's pow
er and prosperity arouse the jeal-
ousy and the envy, and perhaps,
also. to a certain extent the dread
of many foreign governments. Some
of these things tend to prejudice
some foreign governments. and
other of these things tend to preju-
dice other foreign governments
against the ideas and interests of
the United States.
In view of these facts the impro-
priety of submitting a matter SO
intimately involving American in
terests as the Panama canal quos-
ton to foreign and selfishly inter
ested arbitration is evident. In ad-
dition to which Senator Root. who
is the chief American representa-
tive at The Hague has heop tho