Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-02-17

1t is admitted by everybody that the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty intended a thor
oughl y neu-
Canal Treaty View trail canal.
Thoroughly Neutral. e r to
Defense neutral with reference to tolls,
neutral toward such other nations as
might join with the two contracting ma
lions in maintaining that neutrality. In
1896 and prior thereto there were those
who wanted to go ahead and build the
| canal under the assumption that the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty was dead letter.
because conditions had completely
changed. Richard Olney was then Sec
rotary of State and he wrote in reply
to that contention that upon every prin-
ciple which governs the relation to each
other either of nations or of individuals,
the United States is completely eStopped
from denying that the treaty is in full
force and vigor. If changed conditions
now make st.pulations which were once
deemed advantageous either inapplica-
BILE or injurious the true remedy is not
in ingenious attempts to deny the exist
ence of the treaty or to explain away its
provisions, but in a direct and straight
forward application to Great Britain for
The Mckinley administration did con-
clude that the stpulations that once were
deemed advantageous were, under
changed conditions, inapplicable and in
furious, and did make application to
Great Britain for a reconsideration of
the whole matter. thus carrying out to
the letter the idea set forth by the previ-
Gus administration, England did sener-
ously recognize the appeal of the United
States and did enter into new treaty
that surrendered many of the rights that
We're held by that country under the
Clayton-B ulwer treaty. Yet the new
treaty. while surrendering much that
England held under the old one, did re-
affirm the general principle of neutrality
contained in the eighth article of the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty.
Probably no one denies that under this
reaffirmation England expected and be-
lieved t h a t
Coastwise Shipping British ship
Issue in Controversy. r pns equal
treatment with American shipping. 1t is
true that the argument has been adj
vanced both in England and i'll the
United States. that so long as Great Brit
ain gets the same treatment that is ac-
corded to other nations the treaty is lived
up to. President Taft advanced this ar
gument, and ii was advanced also in Con-
gress when the canal act was pending.
But in the official correspondence the is
sue is not upon the general question of
whether the United States may exempt
it's foreign shipping from tolls, under
the treaty. but rather whether it may en-
empt it's coastwise shipping.
The right of such exemption is based
upon several grounds: First, the British
have no interest in our coastwise ship
ping. the law restricting it to American
ships. Second, that England itself does
not construe a general treaty as APP
plicable to coastwise shipping, as is evil
denced by its construction of our gen
eral shipping treaty, now nearing a hum
bred years old. Third. that by eXempting
coastwise shipping, do not place any
additional burden upon foreign shipping.
Fourth. upon the direct admission of the
Innes note, which says in so many words
that the matter of coastwise shipping is
not on all tours with the general ship
ling proposition.
1t is certain that there are a great
many people who oppose the exemption
of coastwise shipping who are. on the
other hand. opposed to the British con-
tention that we have no right to exempt
1t. And it is further certain that a great
many Americans believe in our right to
exempt coastwise shipping, but deny our
right to exempt our foreign shipping.