Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1913-04-26
THE PANAMA CANAL.

Divergent views regarding the right
of the United States to exempt Its
coastwise vessels from the payment OF
Panama canal tolls were expressed
today. in papers read before the sew
enth annual meeting of the American
Society of International Law. Most
of the principal speakers agreed, how
ever, with Richard Olney. former sec
rotary of state who held this coun-
try was entirely within its rights, as
the owner of the canal, to make wha;
ever rules it desired regarding the
canal.
Equally divergent views We're ex
pressed as to whether the payment by
the government of subsidy equal to
the amount of the tolls. to American
ships would be violation of existing
treaties. The right to grant subsidies.
when not expressly prohibited by
treaty, was not controverted.
In the discussions that followed,
many of the extemporaneous speakers
opposed the idea that the United
States had a right to exempt its YES
sells from tolls and commended, thar
such an act would be contrary to all
existing treaties and would bring dis
honor upon the country. In his adj
dress which was read because of his
inability to attend the meeting, Mir.
Olney declared that The all nations
clause on the y-Pauneefote meant
only the Customers" Of the canal,
and that since a nation could not be
both customer and owner, the United
, States was not supposed to be includ-
cd in the words "All nations" He ex-
pressed himself as opposed to refer
ring the matter to The Hague, be-
cause ali nations were interested IN
the outcome, but advocated an inde-
pendent arbitration tribunal, This
view was opposed by Crommond Ken
nedy of Washington. who maintained
THAT existing treaties must be kept
and only changed with the mutual
consent of the high contracting par
ties
Great Britain, he said, would pay near
" one-half of the total revenue of the
canal and therefore had the right to be
consulted especially in view of the treaty
obligations
Chandler p. Anderson former COUNSEL
Ter for the state department, insisted that
all discussion of the tolls question must
be limited to any discrimination against
English shipping and that the 'funda
mental question is whether the rules
adopted by the United States under Ar
ticle 3 of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty as
a basis of the naturalization of the canal
were intended to apply to the United
States as well as all other nations.
Rear Admiral Charles Stockton, retired,
president of George Washington Univer-
sity, was of the opinion that this country
was expressly included and closed with
the significant statement that the best
American jurists believe we are now vio-
lating several of our treaty obligations"
Lewis Nixon of New York was among
those to agree with Mr.. Olney
During the afternoon session Prof. Eu-
gene Wambrugh of Harvard Law School
declared that there were many reasons
for the belief that the United States was
included within the meaning of the
clause.
Horace G. Mcfarland of Washington
maintained that subsidy to American
ships of an amount equal to their canal
tolls would be discrimination prohibited
by the treaty.
The night session was given over to a
discussion of the effect of coastwise ex-
Continued on Page Twelve.)