The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-01-07
WHAT TO ARBITRATE?

We are glad to see that President
Taft takes the same position that The
Tribune has constantly taken with
respect to the impossibility OF the
United States getting a fair deal at
The Hague tribunal in case of any ar
bitration before that body concerning
Panama management or canal tolls.
There is DO doubt but that the united
voice Of Europe would be antagonstic
TO the United States, even TO the ex.
tent of pronouncing that the United
States ought to build canal for the
use OF the world and obtain no advan.
tagc whatever for itself by so doing.
The President S announced Willingness
To submit the case to arbitration is
thus deprived OF one of the prima facie
obnoxious features that would neces-
sarily arise in connection with any such
submission. AT the same time, the
solid fact remains that the United
States has built that canal on territory
within its owD sovereignty and luris
diction; and that the Panama canal is
a domestic proposition, rot in any way
international and not in any way sub
ject to the interference or decision of
any other nation than our own. Any
protest, any claim set forth by any
other nation whatever with respect to
the canal is a sheer impertinence, and
should be treated as such.
The proposition is better which is in
the mind of the President, that spe-
cial arbitration between the United
States and Great Britain would per
haps have nearer chance for arriving
at fair decision than would q packed
tribunal like that OF The Hague. made
up of persons prima facie and immov-
ably hostile to American commercial in
terests, especially when, as in this case,
there would be presented an opportu
nifty to advance the interests of various
nations Of Europe at the expense of the
United States. There can be no doubt
that arbitration like that would be
disastrous to us, There can be no doubt
that if any case could be made where
by the European nations could be al
lowed to dip their hands directly and
freely into the Z. S. Treasury, The
Hague tribunal would find some means
to allow them TO do it, were that tri
bunal to have the say about it.
A special tribunal composed OF rep
reseDtatives Of the United States and
Of Great Britain would probably not
agree. 1t would be necessary to find
some nation that would be impartial,
TO decide as between claims made. We
do not believe. however, that such a
nation could be found, for the oppor-
tunity to utilize q great expenditure
made by the United States free Of cost
to others, or at least open to others
on the same terms rs ourselves, even
throwing our coastwIse commerce into
tho international cost pool would be
too tempting proposition for the aver
ago foreigner when presented. His
mind would naturally turn against the
United States, hoping for some bene-
fit to himself or his country through a
ruling that would deprive the United
States OF its real control over its own
property.
But, as we have stated, what is there
to arbitratcG The canal, and all con-
nected with it, is purely domestic
question; and We cannot, with any
self-respect submit our domestic affairs
to foreign interference or Judgment.
This has becen the attitude of Presi-
dent Taft all along. He has stated that
it would be perfectly proper for us not
only to exempt our coastwiao shipping
from Panama canal tolls, but also all
American shipping; and il We saw fit
to remit tolls on all American ships Of
every character or nature, We would
have under the treaty the perfect right
to do SO. We do not know that his mind
has changed any on this, but we do not
understand how, holding such views as
he has done as TO the perfect liberty
Of the United States TO exempt all of
it's shipping from Panama canal tolls,
he can still think there is some ques-
ton for arbitration. For, If We have
that undoubtcd right, as he has pro-
claimed hitherto, what is there that
we can snbmit?