Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1914-05-31

This is a mere political play to in
fiuence those who are not acquainted
with our title to the Panama cana
strip. Before we could dig that cana,
we had to get rid OF a treaty which
we had made so years ago, which pro
hibited both this country and Great
Britain from owning and controlling
the canal. We virtually said to Great
Britain: If you will release US from
our contract with you, entered into
so years ago, so that we can build and
control the canal, we will agree that
the provision Of the old treaty, that
our vessels shall be treated exactly
the same in the matter of tolls as
those of Great Britain and all other
nations, shall continue u%nimpaired
Great Britain replied that she would
have no objection to the abrogation
of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty II that
general principle" was reafirmed.
Therefore, whatever sovereignty or
right of construction we should &C.
quire would be impressed with this
solemn obligation made between two
countries.
Compelled to Acquire Land.
Nor is that all there is relating to
our conditional sovereignty. We were
compelled to acquire a strip Of land
from Panama. We could not take it
from that country by force. Panama.
in, her treaty for conveyance of that
tract of land, declared, first, that the
right of sovereignty should remain
in Panama, but that the United States
should have full authority to make
all necessary laws and regulations for
the government of the strip; second,
which is most important, that the
grant was on condition that the Unit
ed States should faithfully observe
the Hay Pauncefote treaty entered in
to with Great Britain. As that treaty
clearly bound us to maintain uni1n-
paired this general principle" of Ar.
ticle VIII of the Clayton.Bulwer
treaty, you will see that u title
from Panama also came impressed
with our duty to accord the vessels
of all the world the same rights We
should accord our American vessels.
That duty was the purchase price we
paid for the title, and we cannot in
honor %repudiate the obligation and
retain the title.
Paying Tribute to Trust.
cannot understand how anyone
can oppose ship subsidy and yet sup
Fort free tolls to our vessels. Ex-
empting our coastwise vessels from
the payment of tolls is paying a sub
sidy Of $1.25, a ton to those vessels.
There may be some justification in
granting a subsidy to our ships en-
gagged in foreign commerce to encOur-
age the American shipping industry.
Less than 10 per cent of our exports
and imports are carried in American
bottoms, and a subsidy to those ships
might build up u merchant marine
and give us additional transport YES.
sells in case of war. But 100 per cent
of our coastwise trade is carried in
American bottoms.
,. Without Competition.
No vessel of any. other nation in
the world is allowed by our laws to
compete in Cur coastWise traffic.
Therefore, our coastwise shipping. is
a monopoly without competition They
do not need, this gift. They freely ad-
nit they do not need it, and l for
one cannot see any possible reason
for singing out that particular mon.
opoly for governmental favors at the
expense of the taxpayers.
..,n.. Some Fiction, This.
Eut it is, further %contended by those
who favor free tolls that it will force
down railroad rates from coast, to
coast. l do not believe that that is
true. believe the whole grant will
be absorbed by and go into the peck
cts of the owners of the vessels.
. One must remember that railroads
from New York to San Francisco can
not by any possibility, tolls or no
tolls, compete with water %transporta-
ton between those points on any ar
ticle that can be Transported by wa
ter. Therefore, everything that those
vessels can carry, where there Is no
demand for rushing the article
through from port to port, would be
carried by the water route, every
thing else by railway. There, would
be a division of traffic between land
and water transportation. companies.
Answers Another Point.