The Washington times., 1914-05-06
MORALS OF THE TOLLS
QUESTION.

What did the United States under
take to do. in the administration of
the Panama canal? What did the
Hay-Pauncefote treaty mean? To
what program and policy did it
pledge US?
These are the questions which,
rightly answered, will point the only
proper answer to the canal tolls
problem. This nation can do no less
than keep its engagements. 1t would
be disgraceful and dishonorable to
do less. Better to be generous with
the rest of the world than to do less
than we have pledged to do. But
the one proper and right solution is
to determine exactly what this ma
ton pledged to do, and then do that
in the mdst literal and exact way.
If the United States did in fact
enter into a bad bargain, it must
stand by that bargain. There must
be no haggling and hesitancy about
it. The question is not whether, as
matter of domestic policy, it is
wise and desirable to grant free use
of the canal to our coastwise ship
ping, or to our foreign trade, or to
any other part of our maritime busi-
ness. Those are questions to be con-
sidered entirely apart from and in
dependent of the great, big main
issue. If we have promised not to
discriminate in favor of American
shipping or any part of American
shipping, we have no right even to
consider the advantages that might
accrue to us from such discrimina-
ton.
This is a plain question in national
morals and international good faith.
There is plenty of room for the most
sincere differences of opinion. 1t
will not do to assume that all the
men on either side of the argument
are insincere. Almost all the men
on both sides are sincere, yet they
differ as widely as the poles about
the plain question of what the treaty
means: of what we have agreed
to do.
Senator Lodge made an able and
Illuminating presentation OF the
question in his Senate speech, one of
the best reasoned and most compact
arguments presented in the upper
chamber in years. He arrived at the
conclusion, from an analysis of the
Hay-Pauncefotc pact and the circum-
stances surrounding and arising sub
sequent to its adoption, that we have
full authority to impose discrlmi-
Mating tolls in favor of American
shipping, both coastwise and foreign,
if we decide that this is desirable
policy for US. But, after deciding to
this extent in favor of the free-tolls
side of the controversy, the Senator
turned to the other side, and de-
clared himself in favor of repeating
the free-tolls legislation, because the
President had solemnly assured Con-
gress that the repeal was necessary
to avoid difficulties in our interna-
tional relations.
Senator Lodge may be right as to
his first proposition; but if he is,
it is impossible to agree with his
second. In so delicate and highly
important a matter, however, it
seems manifest that the American
Government is hardly competent to
decide. There is sharp division of
opinion among our public men and
among our people, as to what the
treaty means. On the other hand
the sentiment of the outside world
is almost unanimous in supporting
the view that we are estopped from
determinations.
So the situation is that half the
American Congress and public favors
discrimination, half opposes discriml-
nation, and the solid outside opinion
also opposes it. If Congress decides
the question one way it will offend
half our own people and all others;
if it decides the other way, it will
offend half our own people, and pos
sibly sacrifice an important and