The Irish standard., 1913-02-08

It is inconceivable that the United
States. when it agreed IN the treaty
that the canal should be free and open
to the vessels Of commerce of all ma
lions. intended to recognize or to feel
itself $boundato resogliEe Of terms of
entire equality foreign vessels of COM
merceawith those iofsSts. own engaged
in domestic or coastwise trade, or to
j, SO restrict it's sovereign. authority
over its own commerce, that it could
not consistently with the treaty abol-
ish tolls on its own shipping that
might be entirely foreign to the con-
,ceptions Of the American people and
inconsistent with their commercial in
terests.
The Hay.Pauncefote treaty not oaly
referred to vessels of foreign nations
engaged in foreign trade, but it ex-
cluded those engaged in the coastwlse
trade. The contracting parties did not
have these in mind in framing the
treaty. The disputed provision refers
to perfect equality, and therefore.
must necessarily include only those
vessels capable Of falling within this
term; and the only vessels Of COM
merce that We're then, are now, or
ever have been treated to the same
terms Of equality under tho usage Of
.lations are vessels Of commerce en-
gagged in foreign trade. Vessels of COM
merce following the coastwise trade
have never been placed on ELL equality
with those engaged in commerce with
foreign nations, nor could they be
without violating national laws or the
inherent right Of nation to control
its domestic shipping. There is WELL
defined distinction between vessels en-
gagged in foreign commerce and the
local ooastwise vessel sailing under
its own nations flag between home
ports. Coastwise vessels ply their
trade under different conditions from
those engaged in foreign commerce.
They form q separate and distinct
class: they are governed by different
Jaws: they are subjected in their own
ports to lesser duties and charges or
Ito none at all; and they are jealousy
protected by their own government
which. invariably by one means or an
other. discriminates in their favor.
~ Tire Policy Of All Nations.
Congress has always adhered to the
policy Of restricting domestic COM
merce-that is, vessels trading from
one port In the Uaited States to an
other port in the United states-to
American vessels owned and navigat-
ed by American citizens. There Is
nothing special and peculiar In this
legislation. It is in harmony with the
policy not only OF the United States.
but Of every sea-bound nation, to en-
courage and protect under special
The same system has been observed
by tho making power Of the
Government, which has frequently
given emphasis to the doctrine by ex-
press reservations in treaties.
England has always carried out the
same policy as that Of the United
States with reference to her coastwise
vessels, either by safeguarding her
home trade automatically in express
exemptions in treaties or by subject
ing her coastwise vessels to other and
different dues and charges from YES.
sells engaged in the overseas trade.
thus practically discriminating in fa-
'vor OF her own domestic marine.
IF We Were Dictators.
Az suggested in one Of the articles
to which have invited your atten-
ton, can you imagine what would
happen If our positions were reversed
aid If We presumed to dictate to q
foreign power what Ats domestic poll
icy should be. and IL when the foreign
power refused to yield to our dicta-
ton We should say: "well, this is a
proper. case for an International tri-
bunal.''
Az President Cleveland said on an
historic occasion, 'There is no calam-
ity which q great nation can invite
= which equals that which follows a
supine submission to wrong and in
Justice and the consequent loss of ma
Itional self-respect and honor, beneath
which are shielded and defended =
peoples safety and greatness"
It must not be forgotten that you
can never have an international tri.
bunal where the representatives of a
power are not in sympathy
with the, Monroe doctrine. Foreign
powers tolerate the Monroe doctrine,
but they do not recognize it as inter-