The Logan Republican. [volume] (Logan, Utah) 1902-1924, 1914-04-21

ted States, the sovereign owner and
proprietor of the canal would pre-
scribe the rules governing its use by
other powers?
What is England's position today?
She disclaims any obligation to aid
in protecting the canal. which YVES the
only and sole condition either in the
Clayton Bulwer treaty or the first
Hay Pauncefote treaty on which
equality was predicated. What has
| she given in return for her unwar-
ranted and audacious demands? She
never possessed any rights over Pan
anna to yield to US. She assumes no
obligation of protector. On what
grounds, then, is England's demand
based. She herself repudiatcs the
only general principle running thru
all the treaties-that equality OF treat
ment can only be secured BY guar
anty Of protection. Without the ex-
penditure of one dollar Of treasure
having no territorial rights along the
canal zone, regulating the RESPONSE
bility Of joint protection. she hiss
the arrogance to now COME forward
and by the terms Of an obsolete treaty
assert in effect, Joint sovereignty with
us over our canal. Could brazen Of
frontery go further? And the most Ia
mantable thing OF eli Is tina: our own
| resident, obseQuions to the good or.
iaion Of the foreign powers, Is urging
us right or wrong, to yield to suci;
baseless and preoostoroi3 demands.
| highlands foreign policy is icr.n-
arart and fixed and always IN the
ha:Cs of trained and sstute dirio-
! Icati. She abides her time until the
fat,iul moment or.ives to press her
| demands. She understands full well
that the volatility of republics is
likely to bring into power for brief
interim weak and yielding admin
istration Evidently England is i'm
pressed that now is the appointed
time and a most favorable opportun-
ity to gain the tremendous triumph
she seeks.
In 1912 voted in favor Of the ex-
emption clause in the present Pana-
ma act. I have discovered no reason
to cause me to change. I confess that
on purely economic grounds the
question Is not, wholly one sided. If
this bill merely involved the question
Of tolls or no tolls, 1t would be CON-
paratively unimportant as then ex-
perience would point the way If fur
Their legislation we're necessary. I
take the view that one Of the pur.
poses Of the canal is to facilitate and
develop our commerce. regard 1t as
an extension of our system of river
and harbor improvements. We have
expended for rivers and harbors
far greater sum than the tremendous
outlay upon the Panama canal. We
are continuing to spend annually mil
lions Of dollars on rivers and har-
bors as a national policy for internal
improvement. A formidable combina-
ton is now industriously forming
with an ambitious program and the
attractive battle cry from the Lakes
to the Gulf. Every gentleman who
is so strenuously advocating this
lakes to the gulf scheme would Wig.
orously and Indignantly resent the
intimation that its free use would
constitute subsidy to the vessels
that carry the commerce for which
1t is to be constructed. Do these con-
scientious gentlemen, who so strong:
ly inveigh against ship subsidies and
mist that the free use of the Panama
canal to this nations coastwise com.
meroe is a subsidy, ever refuse to |
vote for the largest appropriation pos.
sible to obtain to dredge out some
creeks or waterway in their own dis.
tricts? We built the Panama canal
primarily to bring our Atlantic and
Pacific coasts into closer water com.
muniCatiOn for national defense. and