The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1914-04-08
Wednesday. April 6, 1914.
CANAL TOLLS QUESTION.

CANAL TOLLS QUESTION.
Elsewhere in this paper are copied
two very strong editorials from the
Washington Post, a leading Dem
ocratic paper, eulogizing those
members of the lower House Of Con-
gress who fulfilled their party pledge
and refused To reverse themselves on
the canal tolls question, merely be
cause the President requested it.
Amongst those prominently men
toned a abiding in the Democratic
faith were Speaker Clark and leader
Underwood, and It may be added
that whatever Nonor is theirs in, this
respect is also due our own Congress
man, who in this as ever, is first a
Democrat, and only subscribes to the
doctrine of e~xpediency when that
doctrine is Democratic.
President Wilson stated to the Ma
tional Assembly that there were in
ternational complications which
made itimperative thatforeigns ships
be, given.equalri rights with American
vessels in crossing the canal. Then
astSpeaker Clark very aptly replied,
Congress shouldHknow, in order to be
able to weigh those complications.
President Wilson never gave the in
formation.
If1the Republican party through
its representative John Hay had not
foolishly pledged'thi nation to give
English ships equal rights with
American ships in crossing thecanal,
and if English, then the ships of, all
other nations, as corollary, the issue
would never have been raised in the
present Congress. The question
arises, then, is the Democratic party
in honor bound, to- carry out all the
bad bargains made b ethe %Repnbli-
cans. IF party meanssanything insa
Republican form ,of government; it
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS of opiuionlon'pabz
lie questions. IT. lis "a we'll kuown
,factfthat the Republican, aTtyyAt the
old Republican party, the party of
wealth andspecial privifege,the'par-
.tysthatmegotiated this treaty giving:
England extraordinary and unwar-
rauted} rights in Panama, was I'M
largemeasure s%ubservieut to English'
capital. Can the Democratic party;
whose. doctrine has been and should
continue to be'"America for Ameri-
cans;'' be expected to continue this
.subserviency to England? or sh0uld.
1t correct the errors of the .Republf
can party? Should Representatives
SineC Congress keep faith with the DEM
ocratic party and the American ,peo-
pie or should they ignore their party
pledges to follow the President, blind
"? Clark, Underwood, Aiken and
some hundred land ,ffty-nine other
Representatiyesssw~t their duty with
their party rather than 2withaathe
Presidents policies. If rany Repre-
,sentative's vote needstexplanationstit
is the IMAM who zignered his parity
pledge.
The President has athe-confdenes
ref4the people to such an extent, and
he1hss proven himself'tobe man of
such surprising character, such:won1
2derfui tact and power, that people
haveieome TO accept his opinion as
right, merely because it is his opin7
ion. The Supreme Court Of this
State, aand'even ofathe United States,
in,.the. light. Of centuries Of prece-
dents, have reversed themselves,
Shave torn down their own detective
edi6ces. What wonder then that
loyal Democrats in Congress 'do'-not|
feel bound to carry out Republican
agreements with England, that they
had mo part in making, against
which they have always protested
and for which they are in no sense
responsible? Should they right an
egregious error or perpetuate it?
England needs no help from the
American Congress to tmaintain her
shipping supremacy. She and Ger
many dopractically all Of our freight
and passenger business nowson the
high seas. The shipping Interests of
the United States needs stimulating,
and this little bone might 'have;co
tributed something indirectly to the
npbuilding of our .weefully defective
merchant marine.
Again, but of less Importance, is