El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1913-02-13
Canal Dispute, No Surprise
England Suggests Refund of Tolls
Would Not Violate Letter
OF the Treaty.
Frederic J. HasIzfn-

W TASHINGTON, D. c., Feb. "a
VA The British government has
followed with painstaking
care the development of American sen
timent and legislation upon the ques-
ton Of canal tolls, and its determine
ton TO protest against the attitude
taken by congress came as no surprise
10 those who knew how the English
{ authorities were inclined to cOnsLrue
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty The most
interesting thing IN connection with the
British note OF protest, perhaps, was
( the admission in the very first printed
page of the note, that If the United
states were to refund or remit the
tolls charged that would not De a viola
ton OF the letter of the treaty. II will
be seen from this that even upon the
British construction of this treaty, not
only can COastwise shipping have an
indirect freedom from toll charges, but
that this might also be extended to the
American vessels engaged in foreign
trade as we'll That is to say, England
violate the treaty by indirectiOn, but
IL assumes that Americans are too hon
Orable TO make use of such subterfuge.
COncede Right of Subsidy.
Furthermore, the lines note comedies
the right of the United States TO grant
general subsidy, but objects TO a sub
sidy that is based upon the amount of
use TO which the subsidized ships make
of the canal 1t also acknowledges that
II the exemption of COaSrWise American
shipping from toll charges were so
regulated as to make it certain that
only bona flde cOaStWise traffic which
is reserved for American vessels would
be benefited by this exemption. then
Great Britain would have no objection
But it further adds that England does
not believe that such regulation is
possible The note puts the best face
on the American attitude, is generous
IN admissions, but insists on the OBJ
servanCe of the spirit of the treaties.
Management Question for L. :.
After congress, with the lines note
IN mind, had passed the canal toll law,
with an exemption of ships carrying
goods between the two coasts of the
United States, president Taft, in ap-
proving the measure, gave out memo
randum- He pronounced the measure as
one admirably drawn for the purpose
OF securing the proper maintenance, Op-
Grafton and control of the canal, for the
government of the canal zone, and for
furnishing to all the patrons of the big
waterway all the requisite facilities
for docking and securing coal and 9TH
Ter supplies.
He then took I'D the lines note of
protest He declared that the canal
is being built by the United States
wholly at its own cost, on territory
ceded to II by nation that had the
undisputed right to cessiOn, and that,
therefore, unless the United States had
by affirmative action restricted itself,
II was nobody else's business how We
?
question was whether or not the United
States had, under the -Pauncefote
treaty signed away its right to exempt
It's own commerce directly or indirectly.
Neutral to All Nations.
He cOntended that the article in the
treaty upon which the British cOnten-
ton was based provided only for the
naturalization of the canal-in other
words, that all nations which complied
with the conditions of the treaty ana
with the rules laid down by the United
states should be treated alike when
they seek TO use the WaurWay- he rep
resented that the measure Of the neu-
tralty was not a comparison OF the
trea tIlent accorded American shipping
with the treatment accorded the ship
ping of other nations, but the treatment
II accorded one foreign country as COM
pared with another. Mr. TAFT then pro-
ceeded TO contend that the British pro-
test, il yielded to by the United States,
would take away from this country the
right to regulate its own shipping, a
right that no nation would think Of
british Note Of Reply.
This memorandum was largely what
drew the fire Of sir Edward Grey IN the
shape Of the extended note handed 10
secretary OF state Knox by ambassador /
Bryce Sir Edward declared that he /
did not think, from study OF MIR.
Taft's memorandum, that the president |
fully apDreciated the British point OF /
view He asserted that Britain was
not seeking TO read anything into the ]
treaty. and certainly not TO deprive the !
United States Of any liberty which is |
open to Great Britain or any other ma I
ton. He contended that the Hay
PauncefOue treaty does not stand alone. /
and that il can be interpreted only in /
the light Of the Clayton Bulwer treaty, /
as is shown by the fact that its pream-
bic distinctly states that the principle of I
naturalization in that treaty was not to /
be impaired by the Hay-PauncefOte |
treaty which superseded IL. He then J
recited that one Of the provisions of the /
Clayton Bulwcr treaty was that the 1
canal should be open to the subjects /
and citizens of the United States and I
Great Britain on eqHal terms and also I
10 the subjects Of any other state which !
was willing to join in the guarantee /
OF joint protection
Purpose of Hay-Pauneefcte Treaty.
The Grey note then proceeds to say ]
that the purpose of the United States in /
negotiating the Hay -Pauncefote treaty I
was to recover their freedom of ac- /
ton and to obtain the right, which they
had surrendered under the Clayton
BulWer treaty, Of building the canal I
1t is cOntended. however, that the re- 4
cOvery of this right was based uTrOn the 4
recognition Of England's right to use 4
the canal upon equal terms with the 4
United States, and of other countries /
TO use il upon the same terms, the Ian /
guage being on terms of entire equal /
ity TO all nations"
Joint Protection.
Sir Edward then declares that the
right Of joint protection was one of the (
things the United States wanted to I
was in the mind of the British govern
ment in the negotiation of the Hay /
FauncefOte treaty that it should assume /
any responsibility for the protection of /
the canal in the future. This statement !
seems wholly at variance with the pop l
Mar idea that un1rfra liza ffou Of tho