New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-01-14
THE NEED OF DIPLOMACY.

THE NEED OF DIPLOMACY.
The supporters and the opponents OF
the principle of discriminating tolls at
Panama are really so far in agreement
concerning the nature of the dispute as
to be required. logically. 10 seek the
same means Of settling II. This was
made apparent by two publications on
adjacent pages in yesterdays Tribune.
One was the utterance of an impress
sive meeting of citizens in Brooklyn,
demanding arbitration Of the matter
on the ground that "a difference OF
opinion has developed between Great
Britain and the United States In re-
card 10 the proper Interpretation Of
'the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. The
other was a letter from n c0rrespon-
dent who strongly upholds the right Of
this country 10 discriminate in favor
of it's own commerce. and who says:
The question is as To the interpreta'
"tioh, Of the clause. As IL
Stands the clause is ambiguous and
II is agreed on all hands. then. that
the dispute turns on the Interpretation
Of a clause in the Hay-PauncefOte
treaty. II can be settled, therefore.
only by securing an authoritative IN
depreciation Of that clause. But how
can that lie obtained? Obviously. by
mutual agreement of the two parties
to the dispute. or else. failing that, by
judgment of an impartial umpire. The
treaty Is mutual Great Britain is as
much concerned in II AS Is the United
States. and is as much entitled 10 say
how any clause Of II is 10 be inter
preted. II would he the height of pre-
sumption for either power 10 pose as
the sole cxpounder Of treaty in the
making of which both equally partlci-
pated. That is the impregnable consid.
Grafton which gives convincing force
to the demand for diplomatic action or,
as an alternative. for arbitration.
But there is a logical corOllary which
cannot 10 avoided. That is that since
the dispute should he and must be de-
ferred 10 diplomatic or adjudicatory
settlement legislative action on the is
sue involved should he postponed until
such settlement is effected. II would
he inappropriate, 10 use no stronger
term. for either party 10 a controversy
which is practically in course Of ad-
indication. or which is about 10 he
submitted TO adjudication. 10 declare
by legislation that its side is right and
to proceed 10 act upon that theory.
That portion Of last years canal law
which pertains 10 the disputed point
should therefore be repealed pending
agreement between the two powers.
No harm would be done by rcpealln II,
i'm any case. for either direct diplomacy
or arbitration can surely settle the dis
putc at al early date: 50 that II tho
decision were in favor Of our right To
discriminate that provision of the law
could he restored before y single vessel
passed through the canal On tho
other hand, TO lct the law stand as II
IN WOUIn Nc 10 duNPTlINP 10 IlP WORTH
our preiudgment Of q matter which 10y
our own admission cannot be finally
judged by us alone.
II will he recalled that before We bc
gan orr enterprise at Panama there
were some Incorporate demands for
immediate abrogation Of the old Clay
ton-Bulwcr treaty. and n bill was in
troduced into the House Of Representa-.
tivcs 10 that effect. ignoring the fact
that by lis own terms that treaty could
he abrogated or modified only by agree
mcnt Of both the slgnatorics. Happily.
wiser counsels prevailed and the mat
ter was left TO regular diplomatic pro
cedure between the two countries, with
the result that the treaty was abrO-
gated by mutual consent i'm scarcely
more time than would have been re-
! quircd for the passage Of the ill-adviscd
bill in question. II can hardly be
doubted that a similarly satisfactory
result could now be obtained by the
repeal Of the discrimination in the
canal law and prompt resort 10 the re-
sources Of direct diplomacy between
| the two powers.