New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-06-08
The Simmons-N Norris Amendment
TO the Canal Tolls Bill.

Those who are working for the repeal OF INC Plo'
emf discrimination in Panama Canal tolls IN FAVOR VI
American coaswise shipping will find little 10 oD'o
10 in the Simmons Norris compromise amehulnen'
which is likely 10 be attached in the senate ''"'
weel, 10 the Sims repeal bill The important pray
teal result in view is the removal OF the olscrln
ton which has not only brought Us mo oia'"
with Great Britain over the construction OIL 'i0
Uav-Pauncefote treaty but also threatens 10 auu
largely 10 the deficit which the government hhuS'
face at the outset in operating the canal. IL We
treat our carrying trade on the same OASIS as 'e
carving trade of other nations, II cannot lnal'e
much whether we reserve the question OF our rsn'
under the treaty TO make DISTINCTION oetWeeh oui
own foreign and our own coastwise shipping ana 10
EXEMPT the latter from tolls If we retreat 1roh
the position unwisely taken in the Panama Canai
law Of 1912 il is not OF very much consequence
whether we leave open the right to so back 10 ta'
position IL we should ever care 10 do So
The Simmons Norris amendment is merely pre-
cautionary. 1t does not assert that we have the
right under the Hay-Pauncefote treaty 10 exempt
our coastwise shipping from tolls, but mercy ue-
clares that we do not now waive or rehnqWsh such
= r;cht if we really have it. Moreover, it very
properly declares that the Sims act shall not De
construed 10 waive, impair affect any treaty or
other right with respect TO the sovereignty over OF
the ownership control or operation of the canal
Most Of the opponents of repeal have been actu-
ated nv desire 10 subsidze the Coastwise shipping
trade They want TO see the government pledse
itself 70 nav part Of the cost of transporting com
modities from one coast to the other They nave
been glad of any kind of preeXt for breaking lne
Hav-P auncefote convention, which they regard as
an Improbable bargain.
We could see no advantage in trying to conciliate
these out-and-out subsidyists. But there has Deen
another class Of opponents of the Sims BILL In II
are found many who oppose subsidy TO coastWlse
shining as a bad domestic policy, but who
think that under the rather obscure terms or the
Hav-Pauncefote treaty the United States has the
right TO regulate coastwise traffic through the canal
IN suit itself These anti-repealers have also been
alarmed lest a weakening the tolls dscrimna-
ton issue might be taken TO imply an undermining
of the rights of the United States to fortify the
canal or to close it in time of war against the sps
of enemy.
II is well TO stop the honest doubts Of these over
anxious students OF the Hay Pauncefote convention
by announcing that the United States intends in
passing the Sims bill to waive no treaty right
which il now enjoys. The Tribune has held with
President Wilson that we have right to discrim-
mate in favor of coastwise shipping. But we are
going 10 refrain from using such a right whether
we have It or haven't it. That is the purport of the
amended Sims bill. From a practical point Of view
IL ought not to be Objectionable to anybody who
wants TO see the policy of nondiScrmination put
into operation.