Evening journal., 1914-05-28
conlinued Fram FIrgt Page.

Continued From First Page.
ote Treaty, nor to discuss the ques-
ion as to whether the words all ma
tons include or do not include the
United States, this having been done
most fully and most ably by others,
and / shall merely refer to a few
points ia connection with the bill
which have made a certain impress
sion upon my mind.
Under the third article of the
-Pauncefote Treaty, the United
States adopted six rules in regard to
the naturalization and use of the
Panama Canal. The first Of these
rules reads as follows;
"The canal shall be free and
open to the vessels of commerce
and Of war of all nations obserV-
ing these rules, on terms of en-
tire equality, so that there shall
be no discrimination against any
such nation, or its citizens or
subjects, in respect of the condi-
tions or charges of traffic or 9TH
erwise. Such conditions and
charges of traffic shall be just
and equitable.
THE Panama Canal act of August
"a, 1912, declared that vessels engag-
ed in our coastwise trade were eN-
empted from the payment Of tolls
passing through the canal. IL Is
claimed not only by the British gov
ernment, but by the President OF the
United States and a number OF our
prominent statesmen and jurists, that
this legislation was in contravention
Of the rule Just quoted. On the other
hand, many of our distinguished in
ternational lawyers and statesmen
including ex-President Tart, eX-Secre.
tary OF State Knox, the speaker of the
House of Representatives and mum
erous others, take a wholly differeni
view. which, 1t may be observed, has
the support OF several English au-
thorities as we'll.
when the Hay-Pauncefote Treat,
was concluded in 1901, the vessels en-
gagged exclusively in our coastwis'
trade, or. as it is entitled In the Re
vised Statutes, our domestic com
merce, consisted of those enrolled un
der our navigation laws and which
paid an annual license to the govern
nent. These vessels piled betweeI
the different ports OF the United
States, including, by virtue OF specia
acts OF Congress, the ports in Port'
Rico. Hawaii and Alaska, and were a
all times, except when on the higl
seas, in territory under the iurisdic
ton of the United states. As the Hay
Pauncefote Treaty referred to a cana
which was to be constructed on tn
soil of a foreign power, it is a seriou
question whether the treaty could hav
referred to our coastwise vessels, in
asmuch as such vessels sailing fron
an Atlantic port to a Pacific port, o
the reverse, and which to reach thei
destination would have had to pas
for some forty miles through the ter
ritory of a foreign nation, we're evi
IDENTIFY differentiated from our yes
sells engaged in domestic commerc
which sailed directly from one por
to another of this country and wer
never beyond its jurisdiction excep
when on the high seas.
"I have been able to bring mysel
to believe, Mr.. President, that whei
the treaty Of 1901 was negotiated tn
British government had our coast
wise vessels specifically in mind.
cluded from consideration not onl
because they were engaged exclusive
ly in our domestic commerce wit
which British ships could not com
pete, but because domestic commerc
in general. or 'cabotage as it is call
ed in continental Europe, refers eX
clusively to commerce carried o.
under domestic jurisdiction. A pre-
cisely analogous case. with which tn
British government. must necessaril
have been familiar. il to be found i
Europe, the commerce of Russia be
tween it's ports on the Baltic Sea an
it's ports on the Black Sea, whic
only reaches its doetination by pass
ing for many miles through th
Dardanelles in Turkish territor,
cannot be considered as cabotage, O
coastwise trade.
THE assertion has been made that
was clearly understood between II
contracting powers that the above ru