Evening journal., 1914-05-11
KNOX OPPOSES FREE
Tolls REPEAL BILL
lContinuod From First paqel

treaty.
Second. Because it is bad eco
nomic policy.
Third Because it will assist him
in handling our foreign relations.
III the first reason is good, no
other Is necessary. II the first rea-
son Is not good the other two are as
insufficient as they would be If they
were urged as reasons for voluntarily
dividing our sovereignty over the
Mississippi river.
IF the exemption is a violation of
the treaty. no man, who believes It,
needs an apology for favoring its re-
peal. If Il does not violate the
treaty, no man. who believes II does
not, can justify favoring a surrender
OF American sovereignty over Ameri-
can property under pressure from
foreign government
81 will confne my observations TO
the first reason assigned by the Presl-
dent, namely, that the exemption yio-
lates out treaty"
GOVrning Principle Stated.
"The principle Of international law
governing q claim in derogation OF
sovereignty is that no treaty can be
taken to restrict the exercise of
rights of sovereignty unless effected
in clear and distinct manner.
First, let us look at the facts. The
United States paid to Panama, S10,-
100000 for the zone itself; we have
agreed 10 pay to Panama a yearly an
nuity of $25O,0O0 forever; we paid to
the French Panama Canal Company
S4O,000,O00 for its rights in the
Isthmus; we are building the canal
at total expenditure OF about s4O0,-
100000; we alone are to meet the
S25, 100000 which Il appears 10 be
now proposed to pay Columbia; we
alone are expending the untold mill
lions necessary 10 fortfy and pro-
tect the canal so that some bell
ligerent eager to secure the resulting
advantage, may not destroy e; we
alone are bearing the risk OF losing
all this investment as the result Of
some natural cataclysm. such as an
earthquake, against which no human
agency can secure us; we alone have
stood for whatever OF criticism has
come from the manner of acquiring
the Canal Zone; we alone have put
the lives of the flower of our army
engineers and OF thousands of Ameri-
can citizens through all the hazards
and dangers OF fatal tropic maladies
and, finally, no other country has
shared and does not propose TO share
one penny of this expenditure or any
phase of any risk, connected with our
stupendous undertaking, Surely up
on these facts there arises no neces-
sary implication that Great Britain
is entitled to the benefits Of this
colossal work on the same and identi-
cal terms as we, the owners, the
builders, the operators, the protec-
tors and the onsurers of the canal,
or that she shall dictate how we
shall treat matters of purely local
national trade and commerce, or that
we shall be denied the very rights In
respect 10 our domestic commerce
which she herself claims and exer-
cises and which every other nation
IN the world possesses.
War Rules Cited.
Taking up the limitations which Sii
Edward Grey contends have been i'm
posed upon The United States by ar
ticle 3 of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty
Mr.. Knox declares that the six rules
therein enunciated refer only 20 war
Five of these are as follows;
Rule .. Such belligerents shall not
blockade or exercise any act of hostility
within the canal.
"Rule 3. Shall not revictual or take
stores except so far as may be strictly
nee sary and shall effect transit with
the least possible delay.
Rule 4. Shall not embark or disem'
bark troops or munitions of war.
"Rule 8. These provisions shall apply
/ 10 waters within three miles of the
canal and vessels of war shall not re
main in such waters longer than TWEEN
! ty-four hours.
Rule 6. The plant, establishment
buildings. works. etc, etc, of the cana
shall be deemed a part thereof anc
shall enjoy complete immunity from at
tack by belligerents and acts calculated
to impair their usefulness as part o
the canal
DO these rules apply to the Unite'
States2 They do IL the United Statel
is included in the language upon whiei
Great Britain relies, namely, the cana
shall be free and open TO the vessels o
commerce and of war Of all nations ob
serving these rules ON terms of entir
equality But consideration OF th
relation Of the parties to the subject O
the treaty shows that the United States
the grantor of conditional privileges II
the canal 10 all nations, parted wit
no particle of its rights of ownership
in the property or subjected its owl
use OF the canal TO the conditions
imposed upon the benehciaries OF II
generosity.
Equality Not Contemplated.
"It was never contemplated at an,
period in the history of the isthmial
undertaking that Great Britain shout
be on terms Of equality with the ownc
of the canal or even with the other user
: of the canal except as compensation
for her protection of the canal.
1--WE find ourselves in rather a ridicu
lous situation under the British inter
pretation of the treaty. We are TO cur
tail the rights flowing from sovereignty
and absolute ownership of the cana
upon the hypothesis that the benehe
iaries of our generosity viii be SO good
even when quarreling with each other
as to comply with the rules we pre-
scribe for its neutrality.
Gas Great Britain has no interest II
the canal itself. but only in the use o
the canal. the United States shoul'
not admit that the Hay Pauncefot
treaty imposes limitations upon tn
freedom of action of the United State
to legislate upon matters not affecting
Great Britain's use. or the terms upol
which her use is TO be enjoyed.
.sThis was the position taken b,
President Taft. written into our law
Inv an act of Congress, indorsed by tn
I =. MI -. - l.- and .lIrl