The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-03-31
PANAMA TOLLS.
Judge samuel seabury's RepIy 20 Mr..
MarstOu Miles.

to address to me consists of a series OF
! statements In reference to the Panama
tolls controversy. which statements, In
the Judgment OF some whose opinion Is
entitled to great respect. tend to sustain
the contention OF Great Britain. Moth
ing is to be gained for clarity OF state
ment by adopting the archaic form OF
our civil procedure as to findings In
the discussion OF the great International
question involved In the Panama tolls
controversy. My own attitude upon the
question has been taken simply as
citizen to whom the claim OF Great Brit
! ain seems unjust and who believes that
the contemplated surrender advocated by
| President Wilson is not fair to the In
terests OF this country.
| In government such as ours there
should be free and full discussion OF any
question OF public Importance No one
has inculcated the necessity for acting
upon this principle more emphatically
than President Wilson. The high ad-
miration that i entertain for him and
the great confidence that have In the
Integrity OF his purpose make me believe
! that he would be the last one to dis
| courage q fun discussion OF this question,
involving as II does so many other ques-
lions Of vital import to our country.
President Wilson's attitude on this ques-
| ton was first indicated by his acceptance
OF the nomination for the Presidency
speech TO the New Jersey farmers where
he favored the bill exempting coastwise
shipping from tolls. In his message to
Congress on the subject he gave II as
his opinion that the Jaw exempting coast
wise trade was In violation OF the Hay
Pauncefote treaty and economically I'M
sound In the last interview from the
White House these reasons seem to he
abandoned and repeal Is urged on the
ground that the foreign policy of the
Administration should be supported. right
or wrong The fact that the President
has changed his position on this question
Undoubtedly because of reasons which
to him seem sufficiently furnishes no good
reason why others should repudiate the
convictions which they have long enter
tained on this question.
There are three fundamental niscon-
ceptions which seem to me to undere
the arguments advanced by Mr. Niles.
These misconceptions are % that the
exemption of coastwiss trade from tolls
increases the tolls which other nations
are required to pay: t2) that the words
all nations" as used In the treaty in
ciude the United States. and ,D that
the fact that the United States has.
since the making OF the -Pauncefote
treaty. acquired the territory through
which the canal Is constructed liz imna-
terial In view OF Article ", OF the Hay
Fauncefote treaty
% II is claimed that the exemption
OF coastwlse trade is a discrimination
which tmpars the provision for equal
treatment provided for In the Haypaunce-
fote treaty II Is fact in the case
which should he found" that the United
States now has q monopoly OF coastwise
trade and that therefore the exemption
accorded to such trade is not discrim-
nation against any other nat on. The
tolls act lcvies the same tolls upon
American vessels engaged In foreign trade
m taxi h.. ..g t,..r
nations engaged in foreign trade The
tolls act therefore. does not discriminate
against any foreign nation. but treats all
nations, including the Un!tcd States upon
terms OF entire equality" In Mr.. Niles's
letter the suggestion is made that the
exemption Of coistwise trade will serAe
to increase the contribution required from
foreign nations. Unfortunately for the
soundness OF this argument the tolls are
not levied at all upon this principle. IL
the tolls were levied only with n view
OF collecting from those using the canal
sufficient amount TO repay the ex-
penses Of operating the canal there would
be room for this contention. This. how
ever. Is not the case. The rate OF tolls
fixed by President TAFT in his proclama-
ton was not fixed with reference to rails
ing a sum sufficient to pay the expenses
OF operation but on the contrary was
fixed primarily with view TO secure
for the Panama Canal the greatest amount
Of traffic possible in view OF the competi- /
ton which would be afforded by the Suez
route. the route by way OF the Strait OF
Magellan. and other routes The fact
that the tolls will In time pay the ex-
penses OF operation and aid In paying
the debt incurred IN building the canal IL /
a mere incident and II not the fact In re-
lation to which the rate OF tolls is fixed I
The exemption of coastwise trade. there f,
fore. In no way increases the tolls levied /
upon the vessels OF any foreign nation. !
II follows as corollary from this fact |
and the additional fact that foreign ma |
tons cannot compete with coastwise !
trade that the tolls act treats the vessels |
of commerce OF all nations including /
the United States upon terms OF entire /
equality" as provided by the Hay |
Pauncefote treaty. As tolls are not !
levied with view OF securing fair /
proportion OF the expenditure rightly .
chargeable against the tonnage benefit" |
ms suggested ny Mr. Niles the argument !
that no basis is afforded for ascertaining /
what sum Will represent "Just and equi-
table tolls Is founded upon an as
sumption not borne out by facts No one .
has yet complained that the tolls fixed
are In excess Of what is Just and eoui- !
table
GD Mr.. Niles repeats the familiar ar
gument that the words al nations" as
used In the treaty include the United
States This argument has been so com
pletely answered In the address OF the
Hon. Richard Olney on Panama Canal .
Tolls Legislation and the Hay pauncefote
Treaty" that 10 attempt to add anything
further upon the subject would he merely
TO repeat what Mr.. Olney has already so
well said In this connection. however,
II may he well to remind the readers OF
Mr.. Niless letter that the words vessels
Of commerce." as used In the Hay Paunce-
fote treaty have been used In other treat
les and that the Interpretation OF these
words, heretofore accepted by Great Brit
ain and the United States has been that
such words related to deep sea or foreign
commerce and that they had no appllca-
ton to coastwlse commerce
(3) 1t is argued by Mr.. Niles that the
fact that the United States has acquired
sovereign rights over the territory through
which the canal has been constructed
since the -Pauncefote treaty was
made II !mmaterial as affecting the
rights of the United States, In view OF
Article " OF the Hay-Pauncefote treaty
This statement refers to the article OF
the treaty which provides that mo
change.of territorial sovereignty or OF the
Internal relations OF the country or coun-
tries traversed by the before mentioned
canal shall AFFECT the general principle
OF naturalization or the oh igat'ons OF
the high contracting parties under the
AEA gsA A. IL