New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-01-24

contained provision for a Joint High
Commission of Inquiry author
lied TO examine into and report upon
questions or matters referred to 1t, for
the purpose OF facilitating the solution
OF disputes by calculating the facts,
and to define the issues presented by
such questions. and also 10 include in
its report such recommendations and
conclusions as may be appropriate.
The further provision that where no
agreement could be reached regarding
the arbitra bility o. question in dis
pute, such question should be referred
to this High. Joint Commission. and
that its decision. when rendered by a
vote of at least four of the six men,
bers. should be conclusive. was stricken
out by the Senate. but the portion
above quoted is retained in the conven-
ton as approved by the Senate. as are
various other provisions defining the
methods TO be employed by the COM
mission.
The expression Of the Willingness o.
the United states 10 complete. by an
exchange OF ratified copies. the ratih
cation Of the treaty OF August 3. 1911,
must finally dispose of the suggestion
made in some quarters that the United
States either desired to postpone the
conclusion OF the discussion until after
the arbitration treaty now in force eX
pires. on June T. 1913. or that there
was any disposition TO avoid arbitra
ton if there should grow out Of the
discussion an impasse which could not
otherwise be overcome.
The reply Of Mr.. Knox seems politely
10 read the British protest out o.
court II will at least make II diffic ult
for the Foreign Office to establish. Tor
the time being at least. any grounds
on which 10 base further plea FIR
arbitration. II was made public 100
late this evening To permit of securing
the deliberate views Of any members
Of the Committee on Foreign Relations
or others versed i'm international law.
although the proposition To complete
the ratification of the treaty approved
by the Senate with amendments seems
likely To prove an occasion OF g,c2.
surprise TO some members Of that body
who have assumed that these conven-
tons had been amended to death.
Situation Entirely Unchanged
Secretary Knox begins his no.e Dy the
fiat statement that he. cannot agree with
the British Interpretation OF the canal
treaties SO far as they limit the freedom
Of action of America. Pointing out that
the Grey note was issued without con-
sideration OF the Presidents toll procla.
nation. the Secretary states that sir Ed
ward deals chiefly with the possibilities
OF what the President might do under the
canal act whereas the proclamation has
entirely changed the situation.
Secretary Knox first discusses the Brit
sh objection, which applies to the eX-
emption from tolls OF the government YES
sells Of Panama. This he declares to be a
great and complete surprise 10 the United
States. which always has asserted with
out challenge that the status Of the coun-
tries Immediately concerned by reason oil
their political relation TO the territory IL
which the canal was 20 be constructs
vas different from that OF all other coun
tries. lie does not believe. therefore, that
the British government intended to pro
pose arbitration Of this question
The Secretary emphatically disclaim:
entertaining any doubt az to the right e
exempt American warshlps and other gov
eminent vessels from tolls as they arr
part OF the governments protective
system. and II In not understood tina
Great Britain challenges the right OF tn
United States to protect the canal or t
require an explanation OF what relation
the movement OF a particular vesse
through the canal has to its protection.
The note proceeds to answer. az alread,
stated the British assertion that the ex
emption OF United States coastwise YES
sells from tolls is a discrimination agains
British vessels, and says:
1t is sufficient to say that obviously thu
United States Is not to be denied thu
power to remit tolls To It's own coastwis'
trade because OF a suspicion OF posi-
bility that the regulations yet to b'
framed may not restrict this exemption
to bona tde coastwise traffic
The answer to this objection. therefore
apart from any question OF treaty Inter
probation. is that It rests on conjecture
as To what may happen rather than upor
facts. and does not present a question fo'
submission to arbitration. az IT has not as
vet passed beyond the stage where 1t ear
be properly dealt with by diplomatic dis
cussion.
1T will he remembered that only ques
tons which II may not be possible e