Bryan daily eagle and pilot. [volume] (Bryan, Tex.) 1909-1918, 1914-03-28

a policy in favor OF discriminating in
favor of coastwise ships going through
the Panama Canal and that there is
no reason at this time why we should
abandon a solemn promise made to
the American people in one OF the
most prominent planks in our party
platform.
But we are told that we are VIC
lating a solemn treaty made with an
other Nation and in good faith that
we should abandon the canal to for
eign rivals without contest or dispute,
in order that we may keep our stand
ing in the family of Nations.
mot for one moment do l believe
that we have violated a treaty right,
and not for one moment do I believe
that the English government serious
! Is contends that We have violated a
treaty right. Our whole difficulty in
the matter arises from the un-Ameri'
can spirit of surrender that some OF
our own people have exhibited toward
this important question from the very
beginning
II the Congress had unanimously
passed the canal tolls bill two years
ago. do not believe that the question
would ever have been raised that we
do not have the right to exempt
American ships from the payment Of
/ tolls when we charge foreign ships
fair and equitable rate for their
passage through the canal. Great
Britain charges $130 for the passage
through a canal that cost only one
third of what it cost us TO build the
Panama Canal. and our tolls charge
is only sl.20 net per ton.
1T seems to me clear that it does
not lie within the mouth OF Grea'
Britain or any foreign Nation to com
plain that we have not given them
fair and equitable treatment in the
tolls that we have charged for the
passage OF their ships through the
canal.
There. is a more serious question
involved in the passage OF this bill
The right to discriminate in favor OF
our ships, the opportunity to encour-
age our shipping and to increase our
commerce are matters OF vital i'm
portance, but they pale into insignifi-
canoe when compared with the attack
on the sovereignty Of our country in
the Canal Zone.
The power to build the canal. I'M
der our constitution, rests in the war
power OF the United States. We built
the canal primarily as an addition to
our war power, as 1t permits the
quicker transfer OF our naval forces
from one ocean to another. Its inland
lake provides a harbor of refuge In
which our navies can rendezvous, and.
as occasion offers, strike either ocean.
The advocates OF Great Britain
take the position that we are forbid
den to discriminate in favor Of our
own vessels of commerce, and as yes
sells Of commerce and war are named
together, how long will it be before
the same advocates of the British con-
tention will advise us that we cannot
discriminate in favor OF our own war
vessels'
The contention OF those advocating
the British claim seems almost absurd
when we recognize that If we admit
them for vessels of commerce, the
same reasoning will require us to ad-
nit them for vessels of war. To do
so would convert the canal in time
of war into liability instead of an
asset. OF course, we made no such
contract. We give to all Nations OBJ
serving certain rules adopted by us
certain privileges in the canal That
did not mean that we proposed to
build canal at our own expense and
then surrender its sovereignty to all
other Nations.
There is no word in the treaties
that even by implication denies our
right to give free tolls to our vessels
in any trade, and the day will yet
come when we will free our vessels
from tolls in the foreign trade. But
we have yet to consider the most
serious surrender that the advocates
Of the British contentious desire to