The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-04-26
DIVERGENT VIEWS
REGARDING CANAL
PROBLEM DISCUSSED
Annual Meeting of the So
ciety of international
Laws
VARIOUS VIEWS
GIVEN ON SUBJECT
Olney Opposes Referring Question to
The Hague-Great Britain
Has Right to Be
Recognized

Washington April 25.-Diver gent views
regarding the right of the United states
to exempt Its coastwise vessels from the
payment of Panama canal tolls were ex-
pressed today in papers read before the
seventh annual meeting of the American
Society OF International Law. Most of
the principal speakers agreed, however,
with Richard Olney, former Secretary of
State. who held this country was entirely
within its rights, as the owner of the
canal, to make whatever rules 1t desired
regarding the canal
Equally divergent views were expressed
as to whether the payment by the gov
ernment of subsidy equal TO the amount
of the tolls from American ships would
be violation of existing treaties. The
right to grant subsidies, when not ex-
pressly prohibited by treaty. was not
controverted
In the discussions that followed many
of the extemporaneous speakers opposed
the idea that the United States had a
right to exempt its vessels from tolls
contrary to all existing treaties and would
bring dishonor upon the country.
Olney's Position
In his address, which was read because
of his inability to attend the meeting,
Mr. Olney declared that the eall ma
tions'' clause of the Hay y-Pauneefote
treaty meant only the "customers'' of
the canal and that since nation could
not be both customer and owner, the
United States was not supposed to be
included in the words ''all nations" He
expressed himself as opposed to referring
the matter to The Hague, because all
nations were interested in the outcome,
but advocated an independent arbitra-
ton tribunal.
This view was opposed by Crammond
Kennedy of Washington, who maintained
that existing treaties must be kept and
only changed with the mutual consent
of the high contracting parties"
Great Britain he said, would pay near
~ one-half of the total revenue of the
canal and. therefore, had the right to
be recognized, especially in view of treaty
obligations.
Chandler P. Anderson, former counsellor
for the state department. insisted that
all discussion of the toll question must
be limited to any discrimination against
English shipping" and that the 'funda-
mental question is whether the rules
adopted by the United States, under ar
ticle of the -Pauncefote treaty, as
a basis of the naturalization of the ca
nal,' were intended to apply to the United
States as well as TO all nations. Rear
Admiral Charles stockton retired, presi-
dent of George Washington university,
was of the opinion that this country
was expressly included, and closed with
the significant statement that the best
American jurists believe we are now vio-
lating several of our treaty obligations"
Nixon Agrees
Lewis Nixon of New York was among
those to agree with Mr.. Olney. During
the afternoon session, Prof. Eugene Wam-
baugh of the Harvard law school, de-
clared that there were so many reasons
for the belief that the United States was
included within the meaning of the
clause Horace G.. Mcfarland of Wash
ington maintained that a subsidy to Amer
lean ships of an amount equal to their
canal tolls would be discrimination pro
hibited by the treaty.
The night session was given over to
a discussion of the effect of coastwise
exemption on canal tolls and whether
the United States had the right to ex-
clude from the use of the canal any class
of foreign vessels. The speakers were
Emory r. Johnson. special commissioner
on Panama canal tolls and traffic; James
W. Garner of the University of Illinois,
and John Foster Dulles of New York