The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1913-04-26
OLNEY SAYS UNCLE
SAM IS BOSS OF
BIG DITCH
We Can Make the Rules
Governing the Canal
"ALLNATIONS' MEANS OTHERS
This Government Is Not Included In
Clause of Hay-Pauncefote
Treaty.

Washington, April 26.-Divergent
views regarding the right OF the
United States to exempt its coast
wise vessels from the payments oil
Panama canal tolls were expressed
Yesterday in papers read before the
seventh annual meeting OF the Amerl
can society of international law.
Most of the principal speakers agreed
however, with Richard Olney, former
secretary of state, who held this coun
try was entirely within its rights, as
the owner of the canal, to make what
ever rules it desired regarding the
canal. Equally divergent views were
expressed as to whether the payment
by the government of subsidy equal
to the amount of the tolls to Amer
lean ships would be violation OF ex-
listing treaties. The right to grant
subsidies when not expressly prohibi-
ted by treaty was not controverted.
In the discussions that followed
many of the eXtemporaneous speak
ers opposed the idea that the United
States had right to exempt its yes
sells from tolls, and contended that
such an act would be contrary to all
existing treaties and would bring dis
honor upon the country. In his ad-
dress. which was read because of his
inability to attend the meeting Mr..
Olney declared that the "all.nations'
clause of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty
meant only the customers" OF the
canal, and that since nation could
be both customer and owner, the
United States was not supposed to be
included in the words all nations"
1T is clear" Mr.. Olney's speech
continued, that a nation or a state
does not convey away its property or
sovereignty except by terms that are
clear and susceptible of no other
meaning and that whether the mean
ing can be taken to favor the United
States 1t is the clear right of the
United States to urge that it be held
that the words all nations do not mean
to include the United States. How
ever, it is not necessary to relp up
on this presumption as the United
States is owner and can fix such
terms as ii pleases." He expressed
himself as opposed to referring the
matter TO The Hague because all ma
tons were interested in the outcome,
but advocated an Independent arbi-
tration tribunal.
This view was opposed by Cram
mond Kennedy of Washington, who
maintained that existing treaties
must be kept and only changed with
the mutual consent of the high con-
tracing parties" Great Britain, he
said, would pay nearly one-half of
the toll revenue of the canal and
therefore had the right to be consult
ed, especially in view of treaty OBJ
legations.
Chandler p. Anderson, former coun
selor for the state department, in
sisted that all discussion of the toll
question must be limited to any dis
elimination against English ship
ping" and that the fundamental
question is whether the rules adopted
by the United States under article 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 TO all other
nations"
Rear-Admiral Charles II. Stockton
retired, president of George Wash
ington university, was of the opinion
that this country was expressly in
cluded and closed with the significant
statement that the best American jur-
lists believe we are now violating sew
eral of our treaty obligations" Dur
ing the afternoon session Prof. Eu-
gene Wambaugh of the Harvard law
school declared there were many rea
sons for the belief that the United
States was included within the mean
ing of the clause. Horace G. MacFar
land OF Washington maintained that
a subsidy to American ships of an
amount equal to their canal tolls
would be a discrimination prohibited
by the treaty.
Lewis Nixon of New York agreed
with MIR. Olney that the ownership
of the canal gave to the United
States the right to make such rules
as IL saw fit and that such ownership
excluded this country from the pro
visions of existing treaties regarding
"all nations" There is not one
word or phase" said Mr.. Nixon,
that even by implication. denies our
right to give free tolls to our vessels
in any trade. | am satisfied that this
is understood and that the strategy
of present movements is that violent
protest against remission OF tolls on
vessels in the coasting trade may
make us content to rest our case there
and not regulate commerce in the
constitutional and more beneficial