The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-03-24
JUN TkEATY A10AISs
Major Dleelew Thinks they Include
the night - Weld the treaty.

Major Digelew Thiaks They lnclude
the Risht % weld the Treaty.
| To THE EDITOR or The SuN--Str: In
| THE Sun Of March 81 you quote the
following paragraphs a. expressing views
attributed to me by the New York Amert-
can respecting the question Of the Panama
| Canal tolls:
1T 10 a general principle Of law and
| equity, as we'll a. . dictum of common
sense. that an agreement Of any kind lapses
or 10 voidable At the pleasure OF either
party to II when the conditions under which
II was made undergo . vital change"
when the Hay -Pauncefote treaty was
1 made, he points out the United States did
not control any territory through which
the canal was to pass. That the United
states does now control such territory Is
vital point. which makes the Interpretation
Of the treaty subject TO the general prin-
cipiss Of Law and equity which he outlines
You are right in surmisns that this
language 10 not exactly what I said or
thought. II misrepresents me In one par
ticuiar. In the FIRST paragraph I refer
to the treaty a. voidable; In other words.
as properly subj, & to abrogation; In the
second. I appear to refer to it, inter-
probation. which 10 . very different matter.
and to which did not mean to refer.
You cite Article Nv. of the treaty:
1t 10 agreed that no change Of territorial
sovereignty or Of the international relations
| Of the country or countries travsrsed BY the
| before mentioned canal shall Affect the gen
eral principle Of naturalization or the OBJ
ligation Of the high contracting parties
under the present treaty.
This particular agreement 10 q guar
| antee Of obligations under the present
/ II ma "A 0rOner1v anOlipd
the Interpretation Of other parts OF the
| treaty, but not to the Interpretation.
much less to the suspension or fnvalida-
ton. Of a general principle which de-
termines whether or not there Is or need
be any present treaty" II any general
principle and Article Nv. are to be APP
piled. one to tho other. II ought to be
done the other way about Tho prin-
ciple should be applied to the treaty,
not the treaty or any part Of II to the
principle.
To this 1t may be replied that the ar.
ticle renounces the principle or valves Its
application to the question before US.
Granting such waiver Is possible. that 1t
is not the alienation Of an inalienable
right, l say II can be executed only In
express terms. Now, the article does not
refer expressly either to the principle
or to the particular change Of condition
which we are considering. nor as / read
the article. does II refer even by impli-
cation to that change. II refers to
change OF sovereignty. to which I have
not myself referred and on which I do
not depend for any assertion that l have
made 1t refers also to change OF in.
ternational relations Of the country trav-
ersed by the canal: In other words 10
the successful revolution OF Panama. Nor
on this change either do depend for my
position. l base my opinion on changes
in the international relationship, not OF
the land owner In the case. but of one
OF the parties to the contract
Panama is still the owner and nominal
sovereign OF the Panama Canal Zone.
But the United States has become it's per-
petual tenant and virtual sovereign. Our
consequent change of relationship may
be immateril with respect to Panama
but II Is more than material II Ia vital,
with respect to Great Britain From be-
ing an associate protector. dealing with
our associate We have become the sole
manager dealing with customer or user
That no such change was contemplated
In Article " OF the treaty is a natural
and legitimate conclusion from the his.
torical antecedents of the treaty and the
circumstances under which Il was nego-
tated. The -Pauncefote treaty 10
but revision OF the Clayton Bulwer
treaty adapted In certain parts to the
~S'''''''N'' VI III neither
OF the last mentioned treaties, nor In apx
of the circumstances OF the Hay Paunc~'
tote negotiation. was there any in,ima-
ton OF national ownership Of the canal
Facts thus combine with words to refute
the idea that Article ". OF the treaty
null!ies the general principle on which
| stand.
If that principle or any OF my reason
ing Is unsound hope to be convinced OF
H. Meanwhile I consider that our cor
troll OF the Panama Canal Zone makes
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty voidable. Ar
,icie Nv. along with the rest OF II. When
! say that the treaty is voidable I do
not say or mean that II should be voided
That Is question OF policy quite indie
pendent OF the question OF right.
JOHN BroELow
New YORK, March 90.