Imperial Valley press., 1914-03-14


One amendment proposed by me wa:
defeated by such a vote. 1t was as
follows:
THE United States reserves tbs
right in the regulation and manage
ment of the canal to discriminate il
respect of the changes of traffic il
favor of vessels of its own citizens
engaged in the coastwise trade"
BY examination of the vote on tht
amendment it will clearly appear,
think. that its defeat was not due, as
was asserted at the time by some lead
ing newspapers, to influences of the
transccntinental railroads.
The reason for its defeat were,
first. a reluctance to imperil the
treaty by overburdening it with
amendments and second, the fact that
the amendments were deemed super
fuous, as nothing in the treaty seemed
to forbid the exercise of the right OF
the United States to consider the
canal as part of our coast line.
All credit should be given to Sec
retary Hay for his loyalty and his
mastery handling of negotiations for
the revised or second Hay-Pauncefote
treaty.
He entered upon the negotiations re-
luctantly, and it was reported that he
had rendered his portfolio to the pres
ident, but he reopened negotiations
and succeeded in bringing about
new treaty with Great Britain that
must be regarded as much more IA
vorable to the United States than the
first draft of the treaty, even as It
was amended by the senate.
The very first article OF the neW
treaty is an express agreement that
it shall supcrsede the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty. This is distinct improvement
over the inartistic, parentheticai
amendment proposed by the senate IN
the first draft of the treaty.
Unaltered in that respect by the
senate, Great Britain and the United
States jointly adopted the rules gov
erning the naturalization of the canal
but in the executed treaty it is the
United State alone, the owner of the
canal, that adopts such rules.
This distinction seems most impor-
tant, and in its bearing, on the ques-
tion of the right of the United States
to discriminate in charges of tolls In
favor of our coasting vessels.
It is the United States, as sole own
er of the canal, that adopts the rule,
set forth in the treaty that "the canal
shall be free and open to the vessels
of commerce and Of war of all nations
observing these rules on terms of en-
tire equality, so that there shall be no
discrimination against any such ma
ton, or its citizens, or subjects, III
respect of the conditions of charges
of traffic or otherwise. Such condi-
tions and charges of traffic shall be
just and equitable"
1t seems to the majority of Ameri-
cans ridiculous to interpretate the
words "any nation observing these
rules" as including the nation that
owns the canal and made the rule.
There is no injustice or inequality
in such discrimination as congress
already has made in favor of domes-
tic trade, for, under our laws, foreign
vessels are not permitted to partici-
pate in American coastwise trade and
therefore, there can be no rivalry of
competition between such classes OF
vessels.
Yet such forced Interpretation Is
the only possible ground for any con-
troversy over the matter.
The defeat of the amendment pro-
posed by me to the treaty has nc
bearing on the subject now except
that the question of free tolls for our
domestic trade was raised by the
amendment and the action of the
senate on it was known the world
over
Neither of the high contracting par
ties, in formulating new treaty, dis
posed of the question by an express or
implied declaration in the treaty, one
way or another.
In clear or express terms the Unit
ed States has never in any way part
ed vita, or abridged its rights to eX-
empt its coasting vessels from charges
Of canal tolls.
Whatever may be the underlined
dangers referred to by the president
when he urges congress to repeal the
canal tolls act, congress certainly
will increase our ultimate risks and
lower the dignity Of our nation in