New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-05-11

obedience to them be compelled by the
guns we are planting there for the pro-
lection OF the canal? Does not such a
view OF our rights invite all other ma
lions 20 war with us IL we. during an
actual state OF war. use the canal for any
military purpose? In short. would we not
thus make all nations the allies OF our
immediate adversary II we have agreed
with all nations through Great Britain
that the rules we prescribe for the use OF
the canal apply TO ourselves, the grantors
OF tho use?
''Slr Edward Grey seeks 20 avoid the
application 20 the United States OF all the
rules in Article III except Rule by say
ing. Now that the United States has be-
come practical sovereign OF the canal
his majesty's government do not question
its title to exercise belligerent rights for
its protection. That is TO say. our sub
seuuently acquired sovereignty automat-
ically exempts us from the application of
Ave OF the rules 10 be observed by all
nations as a condition for the use OF the
canal, but our ownership plus our sover-
eighty does not exempt us from the other
one.
Sits British Claims.
Practical sovereignty which, as
Great Britain claims. permits us at our
own expense and risk to defend the canal.
to maintain its neutrality and TO exclu-
sively exercise belligerent rights within
It's boundaries in time of war imports to
It's possessor no higher title or privilege
than does sovereignty and ownership in
time OF peace. Our rights in peace bear
just relation to our obligations in war.
The benefits of sovereignty go hand in
hand with its burdens.
1T was never contemplated at any
period in the history of the isthmian un-
dertaking that Great Britain should be
on terms OF equality with the owner OF a
canal or even with the other users of the
canal, except as compensation for her
protection of the canal.
How is the United States assured that
Great Britain or any other nation Will
observe the rules we have prescribed for
the use Of the canal? They have not
agreed to DO so. The Hay Pauncefote
treaty contains no such an obligation on
their part. We refused TO accept Ian
guage proposed by Great Britain tina:
would make the risht 10 use the canal
by other nations a contractual right.
Great Britain did not ask that the tolls
exemption be repealed Her position adj
vanced before the canal act was passed
was that If the exemption was not re-
stricted TO bona hde coastwise trade and.
later, If the tolls were not computed upon
the basis Of all shipping using the canal.
then her rights under the treaty would
be violated. and asked arbitration of this
construction of the treaty.
what Great Britain really claims is
that the Hay-Pauncefote treaty imposes
limitations upon our freedom of action.
ana what she originally asked was, in
view Of tho Presidents memorandum at
tached to the canal act that the question
thus raised should be submitted TO arbi-
tration.
AS Great Britain has no interest IN
the canal itself. but only in the use OF
the canal. the United States should not
admit that the ay-Pauncefote treaty
imposes limitations upon the freedom OF
action of the United States to legislatc
upon matters not affecting Great Brit
aims use or the terms upon which her
use IS TO he enjoyed"