The Wheeling intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1903-1961, 1914-05-22

impaired. II cannot be doubted. there
fore. that ever n the United States
charges tolls TO its own vessels. IL has
the right TO refuad such tolls by means
of a subsidy. This. OF itself. shows
that he equal equality clause OF the
treaty could o apply TO American
vessels. In order 10 apply 10 Ameri-
can vessels. the treaty would have 10
have the words. Including the shin
ping OF the United States" or an
equivalent. Inserted In the treaty i'm
mediateiy following the word ma
TONS, n in order that this clause
should be effective. would have to
include n provision specifically re-
nouncing on the part of the United
States its right 20 subsidize any ships
carrying its flag passing through the
Canal This t. the logical conclusion
OF the contention made by the advo-
Gates OF tolls exemption repeal. That
II IL absurd = uncomfortable goes
without saying.
Would Apply to War Vessels.
As bearing out the act that the
treaty could never have meant what
the advocates of the repeal of tolls
exemption claim IL does. I call your
attention TO the words "of war" in the
provision OF Article 2. above quoted.
IL is obvious that IL this equal equali-
~ clause applies TO commercial ves-
sells. IL applies with equal force TO.
the war vessels OF the United States.
because vessels of war are contained
in the equal equality clause In exactly
the same relation that vessels OF com
merce are SO included. Everyone.
that no Congress OF h United
States would for a moment think OF
excluding the American feet from the.
military advantages OF the Panama
Canal. The whole n OF the public
discussion for many years prior to.
the beginning of work on the canal
was TO place in peculiar prominence
the military advantages which would
accrue to the United States In being
able to pas its fleet through the ca
nal when IL was at war. while exclud-
ing that of the nation with which II
was at war. Moreover. provisions Sd.
9Th. 9TH and 9th of the same Article.
could not under any possible interpre-
tation be construed as applying to the.
American fleet, and yet these para
graphs explicitly relate 10 and are TO.
be read IN connection with the vessels
OF wal referred TO in the provision of
the same Article above quoted.
Even II such an unthinkable provi-
sion was contemplated by the treaty,
IL would be nullihed by reason OF IT'S
impossibility. IL Is evident tina even
" the American government wanted
10 pay tolls on its ships OF wal pass.
10 AA1A1 NAf AaAlAAH Il hOull IuGIN~I
~ be a case of taking money out of
one pocket and putting IL into another.
In other words. no payment AZ all.
There are indications that the ad-
Nocates OF the administration poltcv
are now abandoning their claim that
the treaty itself fOrbids the exemption
OF American shipping. and are falling
back on the argument that the state
OF our foreign relations demands the
repeal of tolls exemption. In some
cases the papers are directly stating
that the President feels he cannot
carry out his policy in Mexico unless
Congress grants his request. This con
tention Is the most extraordinary ar
gunent ever advanced to bolster an
impossible ause.
An Illustration.
fIo Illustrate: We will assume hat
Germany. or Japan. or even our great
and good friend. Great Britain. made
= direct threat OF war unless we &C
cept their Interpretation OF the Hay
Pauncefote treaty and allowed them
to dictate to us as TO American regu-
lattons respecting a strictly American
matter. about which they could not
be. and never have been concerned.
In such a case. we would have the
possibility OF a great foreign wal with
all the expense and loss Of life there
by involved. In other words. we
would be threatened with the most
serious consequences from a foreign
standpoint that could occur.
Is IT conceivable that any Admins
tration would consider such a demand.
cOuched in such terms. for a mo-
ment. or IL n did so consider. that IL
would not be forced by American pub
lie opinion to reverse itself. Even
the present Administration. welded
a. II Is 10 an impossible ideal OF peace
At any price and whose foreign policy
Is without exception feeble and inept
70 a hitherto undreamed OF degree.
could not do otherwise than reject
such a demand.
Yet. merely because. f@orsootn. we
need assistance. or think We reed
assistance. In handling the situation IN
Mexico (Which we are certainly power
ful enough 20 handle unaided and
which we have through the last hun
dred years handled without the as
sistance OF foreign powers). or be-
cause u%nhapplly our relations have
become somewhat less cordial than
usual with other foreign nations. We
are asked to grant 10 foreign request
that which we would not think OF
granting TO n demand bearing with
u the most extreme foreign danger
The advocates Of the repeal Of
tolls exemption claim that we are not
giving up anything. that the coast
wise shipping is 81 monopoly roserv-
I'd 10 American shipping In any event
and that consequently no injury ran
be done to Il by charging % tolls. o
sometimes wonder II these people are
really In earnest In making such o.
statement. becauae n they are 80
argues such complete ignorance OF
the subject Tho facts are as fol
lows.
Repeal Arguments Refuted.
First-At he present time the cost
OF laying down manufactured articles
IN Pacific coast ports OIL practically
tho same FOR American manufacturer
and English and German mauufaCfur.
crr n anyone disputes this. fhry
have only 10 refer 20 the market quo.
tationz in a Francisco and they viii
Ind NAT not only o. this he case. but
that on certain lines. foreign quota.
tiuus ere lower than The American
quotations Hy consulting the Ameri
can manufacturer they viii also learn