Bisbee daily review., 1914-02-26

Senator George r.. Chamberlain. champloned by the Chief Executive. the senior senator from oregon en- ters positive but dignihed remon. strance.
 In speaking of the agitation now go- ing on Senator Chamberlain said:
 Tt is my opinion that the demand for the repeal of that portion of the Panama Canal Act granting free tools to coastwise vessels is inspired, in the first instance, by the Canadian Pacific railroad and this in turn by the trans-continental railroads of this country. These latter roads have all ways opposed the construction of a canal. Their emissaries were in Washington to oppose the passage of the Panama Canal Act, and, having failed in that. they are now resortng 10 the field of diplomacy, ready if need be, to plunge the country into a bloody war to accomplish their pur. pose.
 Suppose Congress yields to the de- mands of Great Britain and repeals the free.tolls clause of the act, will that satisfy her? Not by any means, for. yielding to this demand, it will be followed by other insistent demands and amongst these will be the open ing of the canal to railroad-owned ships This is the real secret behind which the transcontinental lines are hiding, both those in Canada and the United States.
 If these demands are compiled with it will be insisted that we have no right to fortify the canal; that we have no right to pass our navy through the canal in time of war; that we cannot honor our treaty with Pan anna with reference to the passage of her vessels through the canal; in fact that We have no right whatsoever
 except to eXpend about sixteen mil 5 lions Of dollars per annum in the 3 maintenance and operation of grea
 national highway built by American ingenuity with American money. | There Is no question that there arr { international complications whicl :, make the subject delicate one q this particular juncture, but a trul!
 American policy demands that thu n Panama canal act should stand ss i
 was enacted in spite of these compli U cations. and the United States ough r. to maintain its position al any hazar' il or cost. lt Is insisted by those wh
 would repeal the clause that it is il n violation of the Hay-Pauncefote tres t ty, but the question of treaty yiol' :. lion was discussed at great lengt
 before the law was enacted, and $ was determined by an oyerwhelmin B. vote in both the Senate and ilous ., that the enactment of the law was i " no sense of ihe word a violation c A. the treaty it is not a party question Is but one Of national import
 <. Not only was this view taken b '' Congress but the then President C y, the United States, as well as the Se 1t retary of State. both of whom wer <, and are distinguished constitutions ' lawyers, maintained the same viey 10 the first in his approval of the act a
 passed, and the second in his answt
 to the protest of Earl Grey. Furth,
 than that, the Supreme Court of th le United States, in passing upon tre
 tyh provision between the Unite " States and Great Britain. very muc y- like the one in question, held that o was not violation of the terms
 the treaty that the legislature
 Teyas discriminated in favor of Anne
 ican vessels engaged in nayigatir al the waters of that state.
 "The concensus Of opinion throug K out the United States sustains Il 1t view that there is no sound basis f
 the argument that the law violat
 any treaty obligations, but aside fro