Weekly journal-miner. [volume] (Prescott, Ariz.) 1908-1929, 1914-04-08

discrimination in favor ri Ameri-
can ships. or We must in the end
pay Indirect subsidies. The subsidies
and-disciminations that European gov
crnmcn.s haze given 10 their ship
ping interests have practically driv-
en- american ships from the seas.
For the reasons given l believe
that the Democratic party was both
wise and patriotic when it announc-
cd 4 policy in favor OF discriminat-
ing in favor of coastwisc ships go
ing through the Panama Canal and
that there is no reason at this time
why we should abandon 4 solemn
promise made 10 the American peo-
pie in one OF the most prominent
planks in our party platform.
But We are told that we are
violating solemn treaty made with
another nation and in good faith
that We should abandon the canal
to foreign rivals without contest
or dispute, in order that we may
keep our standing in the family of
nations.
Not for one moment do | be-
lieve that W have violated a treaty
right. az not for one moment do
| believe that the English gov
eminent seriously contends thar we
have 5iolated a treaty right. Our
whole difficulty in the matter arises
from this un-American spirit OF
surrcnde. that some of our ow5
people have exhibited toward this
important question from the very
beginning.
If the Congress had unanimous
ly 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 4 fair and
equitable rate for their passage
through the canal. Great Britain
charges T130 for the passage
throupi canal that cost only one
third of what it cost us to build
the Panama canal and our tolls
charge is oily $l.2O net per ton.
at seems to me clear that it
does not lie within the mouth OF
Great Britain or any foreign nation
10 complain that we have not CIV
ell them fair and equitable treat
ment in the tolls that we have
charged for the passage of their
ships through the canal.
There is 4 more serious ques-
ton ir.llvcd in the passage OF this
bill. The right to Disseminate in
favor of our ships, the opportunity
TO encourage our shipping and to
increase our commerce are matters
OF vital Importance, but they pale
into insignificance when compared
with the attack on the sovereignty
OF our country in the Canal Zone.
The power to build the canal
under our Constitution rests in the
war power OF the United States.
We built the canal primarily as an
addition to our war power as it
permits the quicker transfer of our
naval forces from one ocean to
another.
The advocates OF Great Britain
take the position that we are for
hidden to discriminate in favor OF
our vessels OF commerce, and as
vessels OF commerce and war are
named together, how long will ii be
before the same advocates of the
British contention will advise us
that we cannot discriminate in fav-
or of our own war vessels.
The contention OF those advocat-
ing the British claim seems almost
absurd when we recognize that if
we admit them for vessels Of COM
merce the same reasoning will re-
ouire us to admit them for vessels
of war. To do so would convert
the canal in time of war into a
liability instead OF an asset OF
course we made no such contract.
We give to all nations observing
certain rules adopted by us certain
I 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 YES
sells 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 contention:
IaE,ro -,