Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-06-04
Editorial Comment
Our Supremacy the Real Issue.

Washington Post.)
DIR. David Jayne Hill. in an illuminat-
ing article on the canal tolls controversy,
in the June number of the Review of Re-
views holds that the real issue is not the
economic advantages to be derived from
the canal. lie maintains that the vital
question is: Does the government of the
United States possess supremacy in the
! Panama Canal or does ii not? DR.. Hill,
as first Assistant Secretary of State, was
Secretary Hays right-hand man during
the negotiation of the first and second
Hay-Pauncefote treaties, and the obser-
vations on the question he has PROFOUND
ed are of great value and Importance.
If the United States is included among
the nations which are to observe the
rules laid down by this government for
the use of the canal. then the canal must
be free and open to the war vessels of
the United States and those of other
countries on precisely the same terms.
DR. Hill, therefore, reasons that under
this Interpretation the United States
must either pay tolls on its war vessels
or the war vessels of other nations are
entitled to pass through without pay
ment of tolls The United States would
not have right to embark or disembark
ships. or keep its war vessels in the
canal beyond a specified time. The Unit
ed States, although the owner of the
canal and sovereign of the canal terri
tory. would be prevented from closing
the canal to the warships of nation
making war against this country.
DR.. Hill shows that this absurd inter
probation of the treaty was never in the
minds of its makers. Conditions had
entirely changed between the time of
making the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty
and the drafting of the second In Sec
rotary Hays words, a radical and inn
portant change" was made in the treaty.
The equality of nations in assuming the
obligation to enforce the neutrality of
the canal was removed, and the United
States alone assumed that obligation. 1t
alone adopted the rules for the use of
the canal. 1t assumed this burden, ac-
cording to Secretary Hay, in order to
carry out, the national wish that this
great inter-oceanic waterway shall not
only be constructed and owned. but ex
clusively controlled and managed, by the
pertinent questions:
Does this radical and important
change" Secretary Hay called 1t,
have no relation to the supremacy of the
United States in the canal? Has 1t no
relation to the future defense of the
United States? Why, otherwise should,
should the American government, in har-
mony with the national wish for exclu-
sive control, undertake not only the en-
tire cost, but the entire defense of the
canal, releasing all others from ali re-
spensibility? But If the defense of the
United States is involved in the control of
the canal, is 1t conceivable that, after
such efforts and sacrifices to obtain the
exclusive control, ii could ever have been
the intention of the government or the
United States, or of its representatives.
TO offer TO the war vessels of all nations
perfect freedom in the canal. or exemp-
ton from tolls, or terms of entire equaH-
ty "otherwise?" Or can we assume that,
after paying the full price, for control,
the government of the United states IN
tended to deny TO itself any or the prlVi-
Leges just enumerated.
The United States did not derive its
rights in the canal from Great Britain.
In negotiating the treaty it was ex-
pressly declared by the United. states
that it would not permit other nations
to acquire contract rights in the canal.
The treaty was framed accordingly, ana
no nation, not even Great Britain, has
any contract rights. The only right they
possess is the right freely accorded by
the United States, as owner-that all ma
tons shall be treated alike, and shall De
permitted to use the canal so long as
they observe the rules 1t has laid down.
The supremacy of the United States IN
the Panama Canal is the real issue IN
the tolls controversy. 1t is for this rea-
son that the American people are deter
mined that no surrender shall be mace
to Great Britain. If the present Con-
gress should attempt to make this sur
render. the people will command later
Congress to reassert American rights or
abrogate the Hay-Pauncefote treaty.
Y:.L< ~~I a sA..,