The Logan Republican. [volume] (Logan, Utah) 1902-1924, 1914-04-21

OF acknowledged and inherent rlghts.
When did the President attain such
eminence in International law that he
can flippantly over rule the great
weight Of legal authority in favor OF
the policy already adopted by the
/ United States? President Roosevelt,
under whose administration the treaty
was contaminated, does not agree
with him; President Taft, learned In
the law and everywhere recognized
as splendidly equipped and worthy to
occupy the highest place on the Sup
rene Bench, does not agree with
him; the House and Senate In 1912,
free from executive pressure and de-
Gliding the question upon the law and
testimony, have disagreed with him.
The Supreme Court In the case OF
Olsen versus Smith, laid down the
rule in indisputable language that our
coastwise traffic is exclusively within
our own regulations and not subject
to the provisions Of general treaties
; relating to foreign commerce. A
strong array Of distinguished Ameri-
can and foreign jurists have demon
strated by irresistible arguments that
by the logic Of the situation and by
all the rules Of legal Interpretation,
and in justice and fair dealing. In
enacting the Panama Canal act OF
+ 1912 we are clearly within our treaty
i rights. Who are the presidents ad'
visors? Who are the authorities on
international law upon whom he re-
lies? He tells us that outside OF the
! United States the question is not de-
s. bated, that everywhere else the treaty
is given but one Interpretation, which
d precludes the exemption for the re
peal of which he asks.
Does anyone expect that the great
u maritime power Of the world, the
q mistress of the seas, would not seek
Il every advantage in the game OF dip
u lomacy? Would other nations moi
likewise favor an Interpretation fav
- orable to themselves and against us
III Since when did nations in their dip
s. lomatic relations cease to favor, how
ID ever skillfully yelled In the profusior
'f Of words. their own interests? Cen
Of turtles Of experience and always fix
J., ed and permanent foreign policy ha
Is given England first rank m the ar
Of diplomacy. She challenges the ad
d, miration of the world in the aggres
Il. siveness and fidelity with which sh
r defends and extends her interests
is She is past master in the diplomatic
IS game of bluff. But her present al
r tempt, however, to assume joint SOY
IN ereignty with us over the canal i
g. such an unjustifiable and palpabl
r. freud that the American people will
p not tamely and supinely acquiesce an
abet such a triumph over our impraC
lr teal and complacent administration
to We have heard a great deal sbou
err our obligations under the Clayton i3u
wer treaty of April 10, 1850 and tn
III Hay Pauncefote treaty Of Novembe
m 10, 1901, and at the risk Of incurrin
Is the criticism of the lawyers OF tn
h. House, who, though often hopelessl
is at sea themselves in constituting tn
I'd law, strenuously resent layman
is Intrusion upon their prerogatives'
Mt shall try to point out some plain fact
r.. set forth In these treaties.
w In the first place, the Clayton Blu
as wer treaty in its preamble refers pal
'is ticularly and exclusively to shi
VII canal to be constructed between tn
AL Atlantic and the Pacific oceans b
III the way of River San Juan de Mica
W aqua and either or both of the lake
We Of Nicaragua or Managua to any POI
~ or place on the Pacific ocean 70
will note that no other territory nc
Ill any other enterprise was include
'iS within it's provisions. At that time
III seems that, despite the Monroe DO
Oh ! Ir,,IanA with har we'll KNOW