Kentucky Irish American. (Louisville, Ky.) 1898-1968, 1914-03-28
Has Absolute Right to
Pass Free American
Vessels.
Submission Would Mean Sur
render of Power Over Our
Own Affairs.
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES

Just now. when the Carnegie fol-
lowers and pro-British are endeav"
oring to coerce President Wilson
and Congress upon the policy to be
pursued in the operation of the
Panama canal, thinking men will
find food for thought in the follow
ing from the pen of Nathaniel T.
Crutchfield, who views his subject
from all sides and presents facts
that can not be controverted. Mr..
Crutchfield says:
| The question of the right of the
United States to grant the privilege
of free passage through the Panama
canal in contemplation of the Hay
Pauncefote treaty prohibiting dis
elimination in the matter of tolls,
seems to be agitating the President
and other statesmen at Washing
ton. 1t is contended on the one
part that the recent Panama canal
act is violation of this treaty, and
that the law should be repealed, or
at least in pursuance of another
treaty with Great Britain that the
question be submitted to the arbitra-
ment of The Hague Tribunal.
| On the other hand, it is shown
that the canal was built on Ameri-
can territory, and that the provis-
ions of the treaty have no applica
tion to a waterway within the ex-
elusive dominion of the United
! States; that there is no violation OF
treaty, and that the Congress OF
the United States has the absolute
right to remit or collect tolls on the
vessels of this country at its dis
cretion. If those propositions are
considered calmly and without
prejudice, it would seem that there
should be no difficulty in arriving
at the correct solution of the matter.
When the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was
negotiated the proposed canal was
to be built on foreign territory, the
Nicaragua route being then chiefly
in contemplation, the acquisition OF
the Canal Zone by the United
States on the Isthmus of Panama
not being even thought of, and GER
tainly not seriously considered al
that time. This treaty had reference
to the Nicaragua canal as did its
predecessor, the Clayton-Bulwei
treaty, although the terms might
have been more comprehensive in
their scope, but in no event did
either treaty contemplate canal
excavated on territory exclusively
within the dominion of the United
Estates.
The Hay-Pauncefote treaty was in
o.. ku hte
ernment to Great Britain, gratuitous
without any substantial considera-
ton. 1t purported to be substi-
ltute TO rthe Clayton-Bulwer treaty
and to take the place of the latter
which was thereby abrogated. Blu.
this Clayton-Bulwer treaty had
long been regarded as of no binding
leffect. Its provisions were openly
violated, and ignored by Great
britain in its colonization and exer'
else of Jurisdiction over the
Mosquito Coast, which was expressly
forbidden by the treaty; it was
later, by. no less authority than
some of our most eminent Secre.
ltaries of State, denounced as obso
lete and of no binding force upon
the United States. 1t has also beer
shown by the records at Washing
ton that the Clayton-Bulwer treat,
in the form in which 1t was pro
mulgated was never ratified by thC
United States Senate.
But let us assume that bott
treaties were duly and lawfully
made and ratified. and that DIS
criminption is forbidden In the mat
ter of tolls between the vessels Of
all countries, the United States In
cluded. What possible ground hai
Great Britain upon which to base {
complaint If the United States re
mits the tolls on certain American
vessels? The only effect of this re
mission so far as any other country
Is concerned is that II Is the grant
ling of a bonus, or subsidy II yol
lplease, to our coastwise vessels Il
1.-THE extent of the tolls which wouls
regularly and without that remission
by the Government be due. Is 1
the concern or business OF an.
other country how we contribute
that bonus; whether we collect II
turn il into the treasury. and pa.
IL over again 10 tue fFooSi ifohh W
payment of tolls In the first instance
and thus avoid unnecessary book
keeping? The result is precisel
the same. save the expense to tn
United States OF the collection an'
disbursement. and certainly no for
eigner is injured by that method.
II is well known that Grea
Britain grants large subsidies I
! steamship lines for vessels plying be
Y tween her ports and the ports of Asi
and South America. many OF whic'
) will pass N their course through u
} Panama canal. II we are denied th
} right to grant this remission o
bonus to our own ships, have We nc
4 an equal right 10 demand that Grea
> Britain abolish her spbsidies to a
s,,aas es1''es sS%,s sssoSxP Ss ca cana, :,
~ hampered that We can not q
ID