The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1914-03-28

ping ana TO re-establlsh our merchant
marine. This has been policy of the
Democratic party since the beginning
of the government. The Democratic
party has never stood for direct sub.
sides but has always favored subven.
tions and determinations in favor OF our
shipping.
1T was through discriminating tariff
| duties that our merchant marine was
developed in the first three decades Of
our governments existence The Dem
ocratic tariff law that is now on the
statute books carries in it a discrimina-
ton amounting to reduction of five
per cent of the duties on goods import
ed in American ships.
IF we have built the canal for the
benefit of an American merchant marine
and not for the practical exclusive use
of foreign shipping, we must adopt a
policy of discrimination in favor of
American ships, or we must in the end
pay indirect subsidies to enable our
ships to compete with ships of foreign
nations. The subsidies and discrimina.
tions that European governments have
given to- their shipping interests have
practically driven American ships from
the seas.
"For the reasons given / believe that
the Democratic party was both wise and
patriotic when it annornced policy in
favor of discriminating TX favor of our
coastwise ships going through the Pan
anna canal and that there Is no reason
at this time why we should abandon a
solemn promise made to the American
people in one of the most prominent
| planks in our party platform.
| "But we are told that we are violat-
| ing solemn treaty made with another
nation and in good faith that we should
abandon the canal TO foreign rivals with
out contest or dispute, in order that we
may keep our standing in the family of
nations.
"Not for one moment do | believe
that we have violated a treaty right
and not for one moment do / believe
that the English government seriously
contends that we have violated treaty
right. Our whole difficulty in the mat
ter arises from the un-American spirit
of surrender that some of our own peo-
pie have exhibited toward this impor-
tant question from the very beginning.
IF the Congress had unanimously
passed the canal tolls bill two years ago.
do not believe that the question would
ever have been raised that we do not
have the right to exempt American ships
from the payment of tolls when we
charge foreign ships a fair and equitable
rate for their passage through the canal
Great Britain charges sl-30 for the pas
sage through a canal that cost only
one-third of what it cost us to build
the Panama canal and our toll charge is
only Sl-20 per net ton.
cit seems to me clear that IL does
not lie within the mouth of Great Brit
ain or any foreign nation to complain
that we have not given them fair and
equitable treatment in the tolls that we
have charged for the passage Of their
ships through the canal.
@There il a more serious question in
yolved in the passage of this bill. The
right 30 discriminate in favor OF our
ships, the opportunity to encourage our
shipping and to increase our commerce
are matters of vital Importance, but
they pale into insignificance when COM
pared with the attack on the sovereignty
of our country in the canal zone.
@Iile power 10 build the canal, under
our constitution rests in the war power
of the United States. We built the ca
nal primarily as an addition TO our war
power as it permits the quicker transfer
of our naval forces from one ocean to
It's inland lake provides a har-
Dor of refuge in which our navies can
rendezvous. and, as occasion offers, strike
either ocean.
"The advocates of Great Britain take
the position that we are forbidden 60
discriminate in favor of our own YES
sells of commerce, and as vessels of COM
merce and war are named together, how
long win it be before the same advo-
cate Of the British contention will ad-
wise us that we cannot discriminate in
favor of our own war vessels7
aThe contention of those advocating
the British claim seems almost absurd
when we recognize that If we admit
them for vessels of commerce the same
reasoning will require us TO admit them
for vessels of war. To do so would con-
vert the canal in time of war into a
liability instead Of an asset OF course,
we made no such contract. We give
to all nations observing certain rules
adopted by us certain privileges in the
canal. That did not mean that we pro-
posed to build canal at our own ex-
pense and then surrender it's sovereignty
TO all other nations.
"There is no word in the treaties that
even by Implication denies our right TO
give free tolls to our vessels in any
trade, and the day will yet come when
we will free our vessels from tolls in
the foreign trade. But we have yet to
consider the most serious surrender that
the advocates of the British contentious
desire TO make, that is, to make the ad-
mission that we are not sovereign in the
canal zone.
''By your vote you are asked to ratify
for all time to come, the British desire
that we surrender sovereignty of the
canal zone and admit that it is an inter-
national waterway in which we have no
rights that are not possessed by all 9th
er governments.
"Our governmental status on the ca
nal zone was established and fixed by
treaty made with the republic of
Panama subsequent to the making of
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. Great Brit
ain remained silent after the publica-
lions of this treaty and allowed us to
build the canal under it, and she is
estopped now to deny the right we &C.
quired under this treaty with Panama
'sThe republic of Panama acquired the
sovereignty over the land through which
the canal was built in the same man
ner the original - states of this Union