The Daily Missoulian., 1913-02-15

the port of Bristol foreign trade ves-
sells arec harged 27 cents per register
ton, while coastwise vessels are
charged 10 cents per register ton.
Furthermore, at the port of Liverpool
the charge on foreign shipping is 33
cents a ton, while on British coast
wise shipping it is from to IL cents
a ton.
1t is pointed out that if England for
moment thought that the words
British vessels Or vessels of the
United States applied to coastwise
shipping she would not have flagrantly
violated the treaty of 1916 by making
different charges for the two classes
of vessels The claim is made, there
fore, by those who controvert the Brit
ish view of the Panama tolls contro-
versy that if the treaty of 1916, still
in force, does not prevent England
from discriminating in favor of its
coastwise trade, then certainly neither
does the Hay-Pauncefote treaty pre-
vent us from discriminating in favor
of our coastwise trade.
Summing up this phase of the mat
ter it will be seen that Canada once
attempted to discriminate in favor of
it's coastWise trade and the United
States protested England, in the face
of it's general shipping treaty with the
United States, has, without protest
from us, Disseminated in favor of it's
coastWse trade for years on end. Now
we come to do the same at Panama,
and England protests. Is England
wrong in giving her coastWise ships
better rates in her ports than are
given to American ships in the face of
the treaty calling for absolute equality
of treatment? 1t is claimed that upon
the answer to that question hinges the
answer to Panama.
1t is argued by those who feel that
we have no right to exempt our coast
wise traffic from toll charges that this
very question was brought up in the
senate when the Hay -Pauncefote
treaty was pending. Senator Bard then
introduced an amendment to the treaty
providing that the United States re-
serves the right in the regulation and
management of the canal to discrimi
nate in respect to the charges of traf-
fic in favor of vessels owned by it's
citizens engaged in the coastwise
trade The senate rejected this
British view asserted that it is proof
positive that when the senate ratified
the treaty there was no doubt in any
mind that it's terms included coastwise
traffic. The rejonder is made by those
who oppose the British view that the
refusal of the senate to adopt the
Bard amendment was not due to the
belief of the senate that the treaty
IN Ind, CT, .I,;
rather because such an exemption went
without saying and that the senate
deemed such declaration wholly un-
necessary.
Senator O'Gorman contends that the
British government first disposed to
question our right to grant subsidies
to our ships passing through the
canal, latterly has receded somewhat
from its position and recognizes our
right to remit the tolls, but insists
that we shall collect them first. He
says that there is no principle better
established in the law than that it
never requires idle ceremony, because
it is useless and unsubstantial per-
Torrance; and that yet England would
insist that we must collect the tolls.
even though our next act be to re-
turn them
The people who feel that the att-
tude we have taken is wrong for the
most part think that we ought volun-
tarlly to repeal the coastWise exemp- |
ton, but at the same time they think |
we might be justified in standing by
what we have done to the extent of
submitting it to a court of arbitration. |
IncS say we are practically honor
pound to recognize the principle of
arbitration unless we wish to write |
ourselves down as unconscionable
hypocrites; they further assert that we
are the worlds greatest eXponents of
arbltration Those who take the oppo-
site view assert that this is not an
arbitration matter; that coastwise
shipping is a domestic concern which
nations treat upon an entirely differ
ent basis from general shipping.