The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1913-03-02
INSISTS IT'S CASE
FOR ARBITRATION
Great Britain Replies to Knox's
Note in Panama Canal
Controversy.
ANSWER MADE BY BRYCE
Whole Matter Will Be Left for
Settlement to Wilson
Administration

Washington. March 1.-C;reat Brit
aims final word to the Taft admins
tration on the Panama Canal tolls dis
pute. made public to-day, insisted that
n case for settlement under the Hay
Pauncefote treaty had arisen, but suB-
gestcd in effect that there would not
be time to discuss the subject further
before the United States government
changed hands.
Secretary Of state Knox acknowledge
cd receipt of this communication with
out committing the State Department
to an answer. rescrving to his sue
cessor the decision OF the question Of
whether it is proper to make such an
swcr at all or 10 await another com
munication from the British govern
ment, continuing the argument.
This latest British note. which was
submitted to Secretary Knox yester-
day, instead of being communities
ton from Sir Edward Gray. the Foreign
Minister, was a set of observations
by Ambassador Bryce. Tie ambassa-
dor explained his reasons for submit
ting at this stage an objection to the
contention in the last American note
that Sir Edward Gray was arguing n
hypothetical case. and that there was
no reason for his protest in advance OF
the actual collection OF tolls from Brit
allowed 10 pass free.
The note follows in part:
His Majesty's government are un-
able before the administration leaves
Office to reply fully to tho arguments
contained in your dispatch of the 18th
ulto. 10 the United States charge daft
faires at London, regarding the differ
ence of opinion that has arisen between
out two governments as to the inter
probation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty.
but they desire mo in the meantime to
offer the following observations with
n go
has yet arisen calling for any sub
mission to arbitration of the points in
difference between His Majesty's gov
eminent and that of the United States
on the Interpretation OF the Hay
Pauncefote treaty. because no actual
injury has as yet resulted TO any Brit
ish interest and all that has been done
so Tar is to pass an act Of Congress
under which action held by His Ma
1cstys government to be prcjudicial TO
British interests might be taken
From this view His Majesty's gov
eminent feel bound To express their
dissent. They conceive that IT, erna-
tional law or usage does not sIpt ,rt
the doctrine that the passing Of | a.
tute in contravention OF treaty 1T hit
affords no ground of complaint for lie
infraction of that right, arid that &c
nation which holds that ats trca V
rights nave been SO tn.ringer VI
brought into question by denial tt It
they exist, must, before prov esting al q
seeking means of determining the
point at issue. wait until some further
action violating those acts is n con.
crete instance has been taken which
/ in the present instance would. accord :
| ing to your argument. seem to Inca n,
until tolls have actually been J lied
on British vessels. from which vessels
owned by citizens of the United States
have been exempted.
/ The terms of the proclamation is
sued by the President fixing the canal
tolls and the method which your note
sets forth as having been adopted by
him. in his discretion. on n given oc-
casion for determining on what basis
they should be fixed. do not appear to
Ills Majestys government II affect the
general issue as to the meaning OF the
Hay Pauncefote treaty which they have
raised.
I'm stating thus zrlehy their views
of the npatibility OF the act of Con
gress With their treaty rights His
Majesty's government held that the
difference watch exists between the
two governments is clearly one which
falls within the meaning of article
of the trbitration treaty Of 1908"