The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-05-23
COASTWISE SHIPPING.
Part OF Domestic Commerce and Not SUBJ
Ject TO the Hay-PauncefOte Treaty.

| nave read with great interest much that
has appeared in THE Sun and in other
publications regarding the canal tolls mat
ter. now In dispute between the United
states and the whole world.
| IL appears certain that we entered into
very solemn agreement with Great Britain
| by treaty regarding our administration of
the canal, and for us to break tho con-
ditions OF such a treaty would leave us
| beyond the pale of civilized nations. For
this treaty. being fundamental condition
| TO the construction of the canal across
| the lsthmus OF Panama, cannot, after the
| canal Is built be changed or abrogated
| excepting by the consent OF both parties
| to II. This Hay Pauncefote treaty In that
| 1t was preliminary condition necessary
TO the construction OF permanent water
way, and since that waterway was built
! as IL has been built because OF the con-
summation OF this contract, Is not analo-
gous with ordinary treaties governing COM
mercial and diplomatic relations that have
no permanent form and no physical ex-
istence. Therefore the Hay-pauncefote
treaty must be considered as n permanent
fact OF International law rather than a
temporary engagement established by vir-
tue OF such international law
The only possible ground for debate
must be In the Interpretation OF this
treaty and In definition of those subjects
which may properly be the subject OF
specific mention Is made OF them
IL may be supposed generally that
those things never subject to treaty are
not subject to this Hay-Pauncefote treaty
unless specifically mentioned therein.
while those things which have always
been acknowledged TO be subject to
treaties and that have been the actual
subjects Of treaty. specifically and by in
ference. many times are logically included
by Implication even II not specifically
mentioned.
Now among the many things that are
seldom II ever subject To any treaties
whatever II domestic commerce or Internal
commerce of sovereign Power In its
,ntirety and separated into It's component
parts internal commerce has scarcely
ever been by specific mention or by inn
plicatlon the subject OF treaties among
|. the great Powers or between one OF these
Powers and one of the smallest OF the
weaker and lesser States. SO that II Is
only reasonable to premise that American
domestic commerce Is not included either
as whole or In part, by Implication or
supposition, as IL surely Is not by specific
mention. In the -Pauncefote treaty.
And this must apply whether this domestic
commerce uses as a channel the Panama
Canal or goes around the Horn, or uses
the rivers and lakes and railroads OF the
country. So long as the internal or do
nestle commerce OF the United States
has never been the subject of a treaty or
even so long as It has not been COM
monty the subject OF treaty the weight
of reasonable supposition IL that II was
not a subject OF the Hay-Pauncefote
| treaty. rather than that Il was such
That our coastwise commerce is part OF
| our domestic or internal commerce seems
to be almost beyond dispute. for only as
such could II be reserved 10 American
| ships In the strict manner that IL II re-
| served by our laws to the complete dis
| advantage and exclusion OF all foreign
| ships. Nor Is this reservation OF coast
| wise commerce as a part OF the domestic
| commerce unique with the United States
| Every other nation In the world reserves
| It's coastwlse commerce for special control
and regulation as being exclusively the
| nations personal affair and not at all
| a matter OF international or alien interest.
| And no nation has relinqushed this con-
| troll by treaty or otherwise so far as 7
| know.
On the other hand IL this coastwise
| commerce Is not domestic commerce.
| therefore excluded from all modification
| ~ treaty with a foreign Power, the pas
| sage of vessels plying in the coastwise
trade through the canal is a more ..agrant
| breach OF the Hay-Pauncefote treaty than
| the tolls exemption measure contemplated.
since the exemption from tolls is a far
smaller discrimination In favor OF Aneri-
| can shipping than Is the drastic Coastwise
| Shipping act under which our coasting
iessels now sail from port to port.
| Coastwise shipping must be either do
mestic commerce and therefore not sub
| Ject to any foreign treaty obligations,
unless specifically mentioned. or else II
| must be external or foreign comm~ ce
| and therefore subject to all the provisions
| OF all the treaties with foreign Powers
covering navigation in general. Where
so much is left to inference and enter
| L., I'll f,,ss
| out OF the Hay-Pauncefote treaty the
| first duty OF every one is to arrive at
| clear definitions OF all the elements of
| the debate And the most important
| matter to define first OF all is the status
| OF our coastwise commerce, either as part
| OF our internal or domestic commerce or
as no such thing, for II cannot be treated
| as half one and half the other.
To many of US II seems that there is
| no ground for debate as TO what our
| coastwise commerce is. And until the con-
struction OF the canal there was no one
TO raise the question, Nor is It now raised
| directly. Yet the whole controversy OF
the tolls seems TO rest upon just this
| alone. whether the coastwise commerce
| OF the country is foreign or domestic
deep sea and so a world question or in
| ternal and so only a national one.
| The canal was built by the United
| States primarily to serve as "A means of
| and the extreme West OF our country
| II the purpose OF its construction has any
| place in the Interpretation Of the Hay
| Pauncefote treaty. Its service to all III
world for all the worlds commerce was
| for us a secondary consideration. Should
| II be determined that our coastwise com.
| merce Is really deep sea and not domestic
commerce. as is implied by those who at
tempt to place It under the provisions OF
| the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, then the only
| way In which our coastwise commerce
could use the canal and preserve the
| conditions OF the treaty would be for MS
| to throw open our coastwise commerce "a
| the ships of all nations equally with those
| OF the United States. For otherwise there
| would be discrimination OF the most
fragrant kind between ships using the
| canal. our only other recourse would
| be for our cOastwlse ships, plying be-
| tween two American ports on the Atlantic
| and Pacific coasts, to go around the Horn
or through the Straits OF Magellan, never
using the canal at all There can he nc
| logical middle ground In this matter OF
| fixing the status OF our coastwse com
| merce, which we are doing really in the
| guise OF defining the scope OF the Hay
| Pauncefote treaty; II comes under the
provisions of that treaty either fully oil
| not at all.
Another question comes UP here as we'll
| bearing upon the status OF our coastwise
| commerce. that Is the provision restrict
ing the use OF the canal by the ships