The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-01-11
HOW THE BRIToNS REASON.

HOW THE BRIToNS REASON.
The British protest against the legis-
lation adopted by Congress which re
leases our coastwise shipping from the
really protest against the United
) States getting any benefit either for
herself or for her citizens through the
building and use Of that canal, although
the United States and its citizens have
paid all the cost of constructing that
Of the British contention would even
place tho United States at disadvan-
tage in the use OF this canal as COM
pared with Great Britain and other Eu-
ropean powers. For, it is pointed out
that a remission Of tolls is merely 4
in the ultimate reckoning. But it is a
form of subsidy very easily applied,
az entailing no expense In bookkeep-
ing or balancing Of accounts; American
eoastwise shipping freely passes through
the canal and that is all there is about
it; no account being taken, except to
register the ship for the purpose Of
making report Of the total tonnage
passing through.
The British contention is that the
United States has no right to favor her
own vessels in any way, since there is
a clause in the Hay-Paunc treaty
which says that the vessels Of all na-
tions shall be treated on basis Of
equality as to tolls and use President
Taft, however, argues fairly and rightly,
according to the common sense of the
situation, that this equality necessarily
applies not as against the United States,
but as among foreign nations making
use Of the canal.
| Bnt If we are not to be allowed to
favor our vessels in the form Of remit
ting tolls, of course we would not be
allowed to favor them by the giving Of
subsidies covering the amount Of canal
tolls that the vessels would pay, be-
cause that would amount to the same
thing as free passage. Other nations,
| however, subsidize their vessels. We
| do not. And If other nations should
grant to their Panama. canalusing ships
a subsidy equivalent to the tolls and
we were deprived of doing the like, it
is plain that the shipping Of other ma
| tions would receive an advantage over
our own IN the use of our own canal.
This is the logical result of the Brit
ish argument against any favoritism by
the United States in the use of the
canal by her own shipping.
1T is seen that this conclusion binds
the United States and does not bind
any other nation. We are forbidden, it
appears from the British argument,
from subsidizing our own shipping
passing through that canal either by
way Of remission Of tolls or by way
of rebate. But other nations may give
rebates to their shipping iu the way
Of subsidy covering the amount OF
the canal tolls.
1t appears, therefore, according to
the British protest, that we are actual
ly peualized because we built that canal,
We are not at liberty, according to that
argument, to do precisely what other
nations may do to favor their ship
ping IN the use Of that waterway.
This result was pointed out by Pres.
ident Taft; and still the British have
the gall TO come forward with a pro.
test. The British shipping and other
foreign shipping. under the contention
of the British protest, may be actually
favored in the use Of the Panama canal
as against American shipping. And
this after wo have spent $400,000,00
to build that canal! According to the
British argument, VIC have tied our own
hands so that we are not able to do
for our shipping with respect to that
canal what other nations are absolutely
free to do with their shipping with re-
spcct TO il.
Surely here is dilemma which ought
to give pause TO those who are so volu-
bic in their arguments against the
American case, and so insistent that we
would be acting in bad faith if we
avail ourselves Of the same privileges
in tho canal that other nations may
claim without remon STRANGE.
If anything were needed to fully sup
port the American case, the applica-
tion OF a line of reasoning like this
ought to and must be absolutely con-
elusive in its favor
-