The Washington herald., 1914-04-11
THE OPEN FORUM.
Partisan Arguments in Canal Tolls
Debate Deplored.

: Debate Deplored.
To the Editor: Is It possible to imagine
a more humiliating or sadder spectacle
than the debate thus far carried ON on
the repeal of the Panama Canal tolls?
The question involved in that debate
is an International one of the gravest
Importance. The only considerations to
be discussed are the right and wrong
use Of the canal as AN international af-
fair. Instead OF that, / do not remem-
Der to have heard or read Of any speaker
who went to the root OF the matter. or
even tried to do 80, so far as ! could
see: but all seemed satisfied with such
questions as loyalty to a party platform
adopted for buncombs in the heat Of
strenuous political campaign. or the ef-
feet upon certain railroads, or upon the
announcement of American shipping or
the so-caIled greed OF England in the
past, and other side issues Of n similar
nature. None OF these partisan srgu-
ments had anything to DO with the real
point at issue, except possibly in a very
secondary degree after the main ques-
ton should be settled.
There can be no doubt that the Panama
Canal tolls raise an international ques-
tion. That question is whether any nation
under the sun can seize the lsthmus,
build a canal across it. and deny any or
all other nations absolutely equal rights
in its use. The principle involved is
simple one, one that is well understood
in law. and that has been settled for
hundreds Of years. Every man has "A
right to the free and exclusive use Of his
own property, provided he does not use
IL in such manner as to interfere with
the rights Of his r"ighbors. No man
owning farm running across Cape Cod.
for instance. would have the right to
fence IL of and say that his neiglbors
on the east and west should not cross his
premises. No STATE In the union would
countenance such procedure. Every
State has process Of condemnation to
defeat it. No nation in the world would
permit without protest. such an assump-
ton The United States of America. in
this age Of the world. ought not to raise
such a question. or take the smallest ad-
vantage Of the opportunity to do so. To
seize strip of land across such an
isthmus as that Of Panama and claim
that she could hold IL as a part Of her
domestic domain in such a manner as
10 discriminate in the slightest particu-
lar against other nations is something
that should not only be tolerated by
other nations. but above all. not he
claimed by the United States This prin-
ciple OF the. absolute naturalization Of the
canal was taken for granted by Mr.. Hay.
when h" took part in the Hay-PaunCe-
forte treaty. 10y the government OF the
United States when IL authorized the
negotiations hv the British government
when Il entered into them. and by the
world. at large. when II stood by and
looked on with perfect confidence in the
good faith and integrity OF all the parties
engaged in ttEa settlement. II that prin-
Ciple had not been recognized on all sides
by a splendid common agreement. there
would never have been any need for a
treaty. and the United States would never
have contemplated entering into IL
The passage Of tho Coastwise tolls hill
year ago was. therefore. a great mis-
take. The President is right in asking
for its repeal TODAY. II should have been
granted AT once in tho spirit in which
he asked for IT, In this way the world
should hav" been given notice that the
United States did not intend to discrim-
mate IN IN" slightest particular against
other nations or in her own behalf in
the matter Of the use Of the canal nor
To ask any other recognition for the great
achievement she had accomplished on the
isthmus except such compensation as
would be necessary TO pay the interest
on the money expended and TO provide
for the uDkecp
And yet what do We find? Tho Speaker
Of the House. insinuatinC that there was
An un-AmcriCan spirit of surrender"
IN the mind OF tn" man in the White
House who hal the courage TO be RICH.
on this vital question: the leader Of TIL.
HOUSE assuming not only that the canal
belongs tn us and that we had a right
TO us" II a. "" might please in the mat
Ter OF tolls. bU, for the exploiting of tho
navy IN time OF war. to say nothing Of 4
great many other arguments intended to
nhame and misl.ad the minds Of the
people. SuppOS" that when We seized the
iahama 'anal strip We had announced
to the world that wc were going to huilI
IN" canal. that We were going to build il
for our own benefit exclusively. except bv
courtesy u others. and that W. held the
1ght in time Of war of closing it entirely
against other nations. does any one SUP
pose that the world would have stood bv
and allowed us To carry out our selfish
and arrocant purpose And can We eN-
peCt them. now after having built the
canal under the workings or treaty pro-
vidinE for its TeutraliZation to stand bv
meekly and sec us carry out such 4
scheme II j. said. with what truth I
cannot tell. that England claims the
right {" do Just such thinGS with thu.
Su@Z Canal whenever IL shall be TO her
interest. iiUt if that is true. two wrongs
d" not make Il right; and the fact is
only another and higher reason why VIC
should not hC guilty Of such conduct. OF
even Of contemplating it. II wrongs hav..
been committed in the past or arc con-
t"mplated in tn" future. the United
states Of America cannot appeal To them
in this beginning Of the twentieth CEN
tury as an excuse for their continuance
in regard to the Panama Canal.
On the other hand. no other nation in
the history OF the world ever had such
an opportunity to promote the cause of
international peace and amity as We haVr.
If We will take broad and high ground
in the working of the Panama Canal, /
making it truly an international achieve !
ment. opening i to the whole world on
equal terms as an interna- |
tional enterprise. and claiming nothing
for ourselves except the honor of promOt-
ing the universal welfare OF the ma
tiOns. s
The Great Harmony Movement.