The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1913-02-12

right to every advantage for their
shipping that we claim for our own,
and that, therefore, not even American
coastWise shipping can be exempted
from canal tolls without violating the
treaty obligations entered into in the
Clayton-BulWer treaty and reaffirmed
in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty.
AS will be explained in a succeed
ing article, the British protest against
the canal law makes numerous admis-
sions as to what the United States
may do under the letter of the law,
but at the same time asserts that
these things Would be in direct con-
prevention of the spirit of the Hay
Pauncefote treaty. At the same time,
the British government stands firmly
on the ground that the ~Clayton-Bul-
Wer treaty gave to English shipping
every right that is enjoyed by Ameri-
can shipping, and that this principle
was directly reaffirmed by the Hay
Pauncefote treaty.
Since the British and the American
views upon the questions at stake are
SO divergent, England has proposed to
submit the whole matter to The Hague
for arbitration. But this court is dis
tasteful to the present responsible au-
thorities in the United States. They
assert that it is made up in such large
European nations whose interests are
identical with those of England, that
for the United States to carry the
case there would be to go into a court
~prejudiced against it issue. To over
coma fhiC 1ifFia,11tNr praciInn4 no -
has proposed that the matter BE- sub
mitted to the supreme court of the
United States.
1t is perhaps reasonable to expect
that the English will have just as
much objection to coming into our
supreme our to have an international
question a~djudicated. Others have
proposed a tribunal made up of an
equal number of British and American
International law experts.
But there is no unanimity of view
about the merits of the controversy |
on either side of the water. There
are some English people. a minority, |
who feel that since the United States
has built the canal with its own
money, and since all it asks now is to
be permitted to exempt its coastWise
shipping from tolls-a shipping in
which England can have no interest
Whatever-it is as little as England
could do to construe the treaty lib |
orally and waive its objections as ap-
piled to cOastWise traffic. On the
other hand, there are Americans who
feel that England PLAYED a handsome
part by the United States in waving
the provisions of the Clayton-BulWer
treaty that would have hampered us.
and that, therefore,, we must be eX-
tremely careful to resolve any doubt
that may exist in favor of England.
There is a large body of opinion in
the United States that is ready to adj
nit hat the rights we gave England
under the two canal treaties negoti-
ated with that country entitle the
British to demand for English ships
and for the ships of all other nations
exactly the same treatment that we
accord our own Then there is an
other school of thought that insists
the treaty never meant that the
United States was to be included, I'M
der he phrase "all nations" and that
so long as we do not discriminate be-
tween the ships of England and those
OF n other country, we stay within
the letter and the spirit of the treaty.
England generously admits, as will
be explained in the next article, that
the United States might get around
thu letter of the law by refunding
collected tolls: it comedies that if it
We're possible to segregate coastwise
traffic absolutely the United States
might ave a right to remit tolls to
coastWisa ships: it acknowledges that ,
our Warships may exercise ~belligerent
rights in the canal: but upon the gen.
eral principle that the w canal
treaties guarantee to English shipping
the same rights in the canal thai we
enjoy, the British government pro-
poses to see the matter to the end.
Observation-Disclosures Canal Tolls.
1.-THE British Position. :,