New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-01-13
THE HAY-PAUNCEFoTE TREATY
Question Not One of Violation, bnt
of Interpretation, Says Reader.

TO tho Editor IL The Tribune.
Sir: IN the discussions which have A!Ied
tho papers with reference to the TIA!
Paur ccfotc treaty tho following points
seem 20 have escaped mention:
The question Is not as To the violation
Of ;nc treaty 81 an. but AZ 20 TN" inter-
probation o. IN" clause which reads as
follows: The canal shall 90 free ana
open 81 all nations observing these
ruios on terms of entire equality, 80 mat
there shall ne no discrimination against
any such nation -
As IL starus tho clause IL ambiguous
and opcr to two Interpretations. the
British gay It should b. interpreted to
road all nations. including the United
Sta:cs." tn. United States Senate says
"all other nations"
II /. en- elemental principle OF law that
AZ ambiguous contract must be - inter-
ur,tcd rs to do equity between the par
tIrs
The British contention binds our hands
"a, 10 our own property coast ana ocean
marinoD and docs not put u correspond
mg restriction OH the British, ana =
therefore decidedly unfair and ncquit-
able. I'm the pertinent words Of Prcsi-
dent Taft. 1T leads 10 tho absurd conclu-
sion that this government. i'm constructing
the cana maintaining tho canal and de
,,rding tn" canal finds itself Shorn Jf
tho RICH, 10 deal with its own commerce
iu It's own way. Will. other nations using
the canal I'm competition with American
commerce enjoy that Tisht and power IN
impaired.
The very laneuae. g the clause "shal!
u, no discrimination against" puts the
United States lthc owners Of tn" canaD'
on one side. 10 10 tho discriminating. and
the other nations on the other side to
receive the discrimination.
our Interpretation treats them equitabiy
and does them no injustice pecuniary or
otherwise /. does not even increase Their
tolls. since the toll rate is fixed far below
The opcratinc cost The real anjmus OK
the British contention il ;he fear that our
coastwise vessels may have an advantase
Iu toll. over the railroad owned vessels
OF Canada. Their Interpretation inter
icrcs with our private affairs. with no
auId pro quo as to their private affairs;
puts them. who have paid nothing, on a
par with us. who hav, paid over 1900
$1,000 and vino will pay millions every
year for uncollccted operating expenses.
The Eollowness - the Blush contention
that ,ho canal regulations shall be bind
ing on all nations including the United
States. Is exposed by tn latest plea oi
Ambassador Bryce that the regulation
tina, no railroad owned vessel shall be
allowed 10 use the canal applies only %
the United States railroad owned vessels.
That f.. the regulations Uoii and other
wiser include all nations. even the United
states. when it Is to their advantage but
exclude all nations except the United
States when their toes are plnched.
Heads they win. tails We lose
one Il the surprising features OF THIS
who'll, controversy has been the number
of eminent and able men who have been
bcfuddled by the superficial literalness
Of IN, clause without digging into the
real equities Of the case.
The treaty IS not q bad bar-ain. but
merely an ambiguous one which must
be interpreted IN accordance with com
mon sense and justice. y. J.. Is.
Nov York January IT, 1913