Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1913-01-16
FAIR PLAY FOR UNCLE SAWS GREAT CANAL

FAIR PLAY FOR UNCLE
Editor Honolulu Star-Bulletin,
Sir:-SOme months ago. the unJer-
signed wrote short article 10 your
paper concerning the present cOntrO-
Hersy between the United States and
Great Britain, regarding the act of
Congress giving free tolls through the
canal to American coasting vessels
In that article, the writer expressed
the view that the whole controversy
arose out Of an error made by Mr.
Hays reviving 'the ClaytOn-Bulwer
treaty, which, by common consent, has
lapsed by nonexecution.
I hope you will give space to the
following article from the pen of the
distinguished publicist, Dr.. Albert
Shaw, expressing substantially the
same view as set forth in the writer's
brief article to the Star-BuIIetin. The
interference by any nation as to what
the United States government shall do
with the canal, through its own terri
tory, built by it's own money, would
be interference in its domestic con-
Germs, and a limitation on its complete
sovereignty. II is to be hoped, if a
fair construction of the Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty limits this power and this
sovereignty, a friendly negotiation
may eliminate such an idea. A treaty
that has a shade of apparent limita
ton of nations sovereignty, and
that may work against the real inter-
ests of the nation, may, if no friendly
arrangement can be made, be de-
nounced. This is a well-recogniZed
principle between nations, and has
been acted upon many times in the
past.
M. NJ. SCOTT.
The first and also the second Hay
Pauncefote treaties contained .stipula-
tions that were quite preposterous. We
, had already proceeded very far with
our plans for constructing canal
without the slightest reference to the
so-called Clayton-Bulwer treaty of
1850. That treaty had never gone into
/ effect, and had been regarded by all
American authorities for more than a
generation as non-existent, except in
the historical sense. Nor had there
been any attempt on the part Of Great
Britain to bring that lapsed' and ,ex-
tinct convention into force. The Brit
/, Ish government had net questioned our
right to exercise full sovereignty over
"a strip of territory. which We might, as
q government, require either in Mica.
ragua or on the lsthmus of Panama 1t
remained for a new American secre-
tary of state, as a matter Of personal
initiative, to revive the old Clayton
, Bulwer treaty and project 1t across the
path of our legislative program as re-
spects the canal. We had negotiated
for a canal zone in Nicaragua, and
were completing the passage of the
Hepburn bill authorizing the construc-
ton of canal. All this was going for
| ward with England's hearty good wish
es. and with the full understanding
that no obstruction would come from
any European sources, when there
suddenly appeared the first Hay.
/ Pauncefote treaty, every line of which
was written by our own representative.
This treaty assumed that We could not
!, construct this government work upon
| our own soil without England's cen
sent, and that we ought not to ask
such consent unless we should re-
, nounee every special benefit and ad
| vantage in the use of the canal, and
, should also confer upon the maritime
powers of Europe it's full political and
military control.
Lord Pauncefote declared privately
before his death, that neither he nor
his government had ever thought of as
serting any such claims, and that the
entire instrument was a voluntary Of
fering of the American Secretary of
state. There is no explanation, except
that truth is stranger than fiction, and
that in craftsmanship the most absurd
! things are sometimes the hardest to de-
feat The senate supposed that Mr.. Hay
was engaged ia a mere formality, and
that it had seemed to him a matter of
politeness to abrogate the Clayton
Dulwer treaty in writing, although
American presidents and secretaries of
state had repeatedly declared that no
such treaty was in force. 1t was diff
, ficult to persuade the senators to read
the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty. Nat
urally, when they discovered its con-
tents they amended it materially
There followed, after an interval, the
second -Pauncefote treaty. Mr.
Hay was reluctant, but was constrain-
ed to permit the United States to eXer
else a certain measure of political and
military control over the canal. He
was, however, still determined that as
respects all its practical uses, the other
maritime powers should have exactly
, the same advantages as if the canal
were their own.
1t should have been obvious to Sen
ators that there was no reason for dis
GUESSING canal tolls at that time, in &