The Washington herald., 1914-05-17

statute"
while the treaty Of 1875 shows clearly
that the negotiators had the two kinds
of trade and the two classes OF vessels
| In mind, and did not intend to include
the coastwise shipping of either country
| in the phrase, vessels OF the United
States" or vessels of Great Britain. :"
there is nothing whatever In the Hay
Pauncefote treaty to suggest that the
| idea Of exempting the coastwise shipping
| of the United States from the payment
Of tolls had ever been In the minds OF
the negotiators. the only mention Of
merchant vessels in the treaty being in
the covenant that the canal shall be free
and open to the vessels Of commerce ana
war Of all nations. observing these rules,
on terms Of entire equality. II any ex-
teeption had been intended. II would have
been the easiest and most proper thing
to have inserted after the words, "or
terma. Of entire equality" In the treaty.
the words. excepting only such vessels
- shall be renEased exclusively and bona
fide IN the coastwise trade Of the United
States" This would have been in sac-
cordance with the express exceptions of
the coastwise trade written into more
than a score OF our treaties in regard
to shipping with other nations. as here
In before stated.
Not only Is there no mention or slg-
gestion of coastwise trade. or coastwise
vessels, distinctively, in the Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty now in force. but, as has been
said SO often. when a motion was made
in the debate on the earlier Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty, in executive session of the
Senate. to amend the treaty by re-
serving the right to exempt the coast
wise shipping Of the United States from
the payment Of tolls, 1t was voted down
by large majority.
Would Bar out Others.
used In the Hay-Pauncefote treaty does
not include vessels in the coastwise trade
as contended by Senator o'Gormsn. then
British vessel desiring to coast south
from Halifax to Colon, and north from
Panama to Vancouver, would have no
right to go through the canal, because
only vessels of commerce and war are
mentioned In the treaty, and the words
vessels of commerce." according to
Senator o'Gorman. mean only vessels
engaged In international trade" The
treaty. says the Senator, speaks of
vessels of commerce and of war The
two classes of vessels referred to-" he
continues, would necessarily exclude
vessels that are neither vessels of COM
merce nor vessels of war And, for the
reasons indicated. the treaty excludes
vessels in the coastwise or domestic
trade. They are not vessels of commerce
within the authorities cited"
This, then. is where the argument of
the Senator leads him-vessels In the
coastwise or domestic trade of the United
States can pass through the canal free,
under the act Of Congress, without con-
travening the treaty, but vessels in the
coastwise or domestic trade of Great
Britain are excluded from the canal by
the treaty itself. as interpreted by the
Senator. This would certainly be dis
elimination" with vengeance.
The Senator's argument leaves It clear
er, II possible, than It was before that
vessels of commerce." as used in the
Hay-Pauncefote treaty, must include
vessels engaged in the coastwise trade of
the United States, and that IL 1t had been
the intention of the negotiators to ex-
clude them from the provisions Of the
treaty, they would have expressly ex-
cepted- them. in accordance with the
precedent established by the numerous
treaties IN which the exception OF the
coastwise trade, made in Article vi Of
the treaty with Austria, is followed.
Other criticisms of the Senator's argu-
ment could be made. but II only needs
to be added here that, like all who OPP
pose the repeal of the exemption. Sena-
toT " SOTIndn iBflOfeS tne pOsItiOn mdln-
tained before the world by the United
States In regard to naturalization and
equal terms for the Isthmian Canal for
nearly q century. Her Official utterances
have been collated elsewhere. Only three
of them will be mentioned here.
Earlier Dictums Conclusive.
Under instructions from Mr.. Clayton
Secretary of State In 1850. Mr.. Rives as
sured Lord Palmerston that the United
States sought no exclusive privilege or
preferential right Of any kind In regard
to the proposed communication" but
desired Ito see II dedicated to the COM
mon use of all nations, on the most
liberal terms and a footing of perfect
equality for ALL"
Gen. Cass. Secretary of State In 1851.
said to Lord Napier. when the con-
troversy In regard to the true meaning
and, intent of the Clayton-B ulwer treaty
was at its height:
The United States. as I have be-
fore had occasion to assure your lord
ship, demand no exclusive privileges In
their influence to secure their free and
unrestricted benefits. both In peace and
war. to the commerce Of the world
Nor In time Of peace" said Mr.. Blaine,
while Secretary OF State. In 1881. does
the United States seek to have any ex-
elusive privileges accorded to American
ships in respect to precedence or tolls
through an interoceanic canal any more
than II has sought like privileges for
American goods in transit over the Pana-