Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-05-05
The Verdict of the People.

The Verdict of the People.
The Washington Post independent
in politics) reviews the canal tolls
problem calmly and dispassionately,
covering every angle and summing up
in a way that should set every sena-
tor and representative to thinking
seriously of the verdict of the people.
The Post says:
If the United States were attempt
ing to take away from Great Britain or
any other nation any rights it may
have acquired in the Panama Canal
the charge of bad faith and national
dishonor would be justified.
If any nation had contributed to the
cost of building the canal. or had
agreed to help the United States in de-
Tending it, or had given some valuable
consideration for the right to use the
canal if the United States were now
trying to deprive such nation OF its
rights, we could not repair the wrong
too speedily.
But the United States is not trying
to take away the rights of any nation.
1t is on the defensive. In, exempting
it's coastwise shipping from tolls 1t is
merely exercising its own rights. The
demand for repeal of that law is de-
mand for the surrender of American
rights, not demand for the recogni-
ton of the rights of others.
The right to pass American shipping
through the Panama Canal is right
incident to ownership. 1t is not based
upon any treaty The right could not
be granted by treaty II the United
States, by treaty, had specifically sur
rendered this right. the. repeal of the
exemption clause would be in order,
as matter of good faith. But there
was no such surrender in the Hay
Pauncefote treaty There is not word
in the treaty on this subject.
John Hay did not speak idly when
he made this official statement to the
Senate:
The whole theory of the treaty is that
the canal is to be an entirely American
canal. The enormous cost of construct
ing 1t is to be borne by the United States
alone. When constructed. 1t is to be ex-
clusively the property of the United
States, and is to be managed, controlled,
and defended by 1t. Under these circum-
stances, ana considering that ilOW ny bHC
new treaty Great Britain is relieved of
all the responsibility and burden OF
maintaining its neutrality and security,
ii was thought entirely fair to omit the
prohibition that mo fortifieation shall BE be
erected commanding the canal or the
waters adjacent
Just as exclusive ownership and
control gave the United States the
right to erect Notifications. as an in
oxryparchin the right
to send American vessels through the
canal free of tolls is an incident OF
ownership and control. Neither right
is denied by the treaty. The United
States is fortifying the canal and
Great Britain does not object, because
it recognizes that the United States
is merely exercising right of owner
ship.
The United States provided that its
coastwise shipping should pass
through free, and Great Britain de-
clared that ii had no objection. pro-
vided the exemption were confined to
bona fide coastwise shipping. Later
after the point had been raised by GER
tain Americans, Great Britain held
that exemption of coastwise shipping
was discrimination against British
shipping, on the ground that British
shipping would have to pay proper
tionately more for the cost and upkeep
of the canal.
This claim was set up before the
tolls were fixed, when Great Britain
had no means of knowing what the
toll would be upon shipping. The tolls
were fixed at rate lower than the
Suez tolls. thereby destroying the Brit
ish argument that British shipping
would be forced to make up a deficit
caused by exempting American ship
ping.
The tolls are not fixed at a rate that
will repay the cost of the canal and
provide for it's upkeep. The American
people have paid for the canal, and
they do not expect to recover the cost
of construction by imposing high tolls
on the worlds shipping. The tolls are
Just and equitable" exactly as the
United States agreed to make them. In
exempting its own shipping it has not
imposed a corresponding increase upon
British or any other foreign shipping.
All nations are treated alike, and all
are treated justly and generously.
The American people grasp these
facts. They cannot be deceived by
subtleties or by ambiguous amend
ments. They know that a substantial
right exists in the owner of the Pan
anna Canal to manage and control that
canal. They know that the canal was
built for the purpose of safeguarding
the nation in time of war and promot-
ing its commerce in time of peace.
They intended that the canal should
be a part of the coastline of the Uni
ted States. They approved of the ac-
QUESTION of the Canal Zone, for the
purpose of making the canal IAN en-
tirely American canal" as Secretary
Hay described it.
No cunning device Of words can dis
guise the attempt to surrender the
right of the United States In the Pan
anna Canal. The issue cannot be
- a A.