New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1914-04-09
THE MEANING OF A TREATY
Our Building of the Canal Must Be
Considered, He Says.
To The Editor OF The Tribune.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: As an American. as a Republican /
and as a constant reader of your valued
and modern newspaper. | take this op-
portunty of expressing my keen regret at
your un-American. unjustifed and incon-
sistent attitude on the question OF Amer
can control of the Panama Canal
As a lawyer. it seems 10 me that in the
absence OF some potent reason the United
States, being the sole builder and owner
of the canal. at an enormous expense TO
this country. should manage and control
the same according 10 its own interests
and desires Now, what is the reason
urged by President Wilson, yourself and
the other advocates Of charging Tolls OF
American coastwise shipping for this eA'
traordinary and remarkable surrender
You say that by eXempting our coast
wise shipping from the payment OF tols
We are violating the Hay-Pauncelo'9
treaty. to the detrment OF Great Britain
This is an absolutely falacious con'eh-
ton. The language Of this treaty shou'u
he internreted reasonably. calmly ana IN
telligentlv. I'm such a manner as cou'
OF law would do II it we're up Tor COT
sideration before il. This, OF course III
wolves a consideration Of the circun'
stances surrounding the making OF 'h'
treaty, the position OF the parues mar.
Ing it and the significance OF the N0fu9
and phrases employed The United o'A'e
OF America was about 10 ouild thI' 90
al its own expense and risk and Ehsi.i'u
was never obligated 10 the extent VI
single penny by reason OF u'S
American enterprise. therefore
United States stood and still stands III '"'
position Of an owner treating ~ os'
ment or contract with regard 10 eoni'
thing which il owns absolutely. TAKEN }"
this rational aspect what IS the iHn
port Of the language used! OiesiN
meara that the United States "oulu 10
bear from making discriminatory y"
charges against different foreign ha'V".
i q il would not charge French ships on7
price and English ships different prIe''
as it undoubtedly had right 10 10 III "
absence of any treaty 10 the cohua'''
other words. il means that the s"po
all foreign nations shall use inc 'a""'
the same basis. This Interpretation u
further supported by the phrase Nesse'a
of commerce and OF war OF all n"''o'.s
for n is inconceivable that YOU OF any w
else will contend that the Inl'eu
cannot send its own warships through wv
canal without paying itself tolls therefor
Furthermore. under the law OF 'ne
limited States-which is similar 10 the ID"
of almost every great commercial Gun
trv-no foreign vessel can unue''"Ne ~
nestle or coastwise traffic. Thus' IL 70
anparent that England has no hoheS'
claim in any case. but is simply acting as
q "do,, In the manger": she Is unaple ~
a.c,,,ro our coastwise traffic herself. ana
she does not want American snip'
have the business.
After considerable thought and discus
sion with intelligent. thinking people upon
this suhiect the conclusion is forced upon
me- that those chiefly concerned are Tue
railroad interests, bot. American ana
Canadian-whicn, VI VouiSc'
much British capital. Their reason Tor
opposing free tolls is known to all. They
do not want tho great bulk OF transcon'
tinantal freight traffic TO pass from them
IN the ships, which can transport goods
much more cheaply than the railroads II
,xompt from tolls and cannot n the tohs
are charged In addition. II appears very
likely that England fears the rivalry o.
American shipping in other fields. once
The latter is nourishcd into life ana
strength By the great volume OF business
which would accrue TO IL II no toll IS
,Nacted from coastwise shipping. T. G.
American ships doing a wholly domestic
business. HENRY l.. BARMoRE.
Brooklyn, April I. 1917