The Washington herald., 1914-04-15
PANAMA CANAL TOLLS.
Case of Ene Canal Cited as Sustain
ing Repeal Argument.

/ gives pithy statement of why IL II
possible for the proexemption leaders to
create sentiment against the repeal OF
the tolls exemption subsidy The argu-
ments submitted by the repeal advocates
are based on grounds unaaswerabIe to
the thinking public, but the great mass
OF people are caught by the catch phrases
of no domination by England" I'VE own
the canal and can do as We please with
| II. etc 1 was glad to note that onS
OF your recent correspondents has at,
tempted TO meet this condition by ths
CITATION OF the right of way on Cape
Cod think, however, that a more con-
Eincing illustration can be given by the
use or the Erie Canal as an example.
This Is domestic matter on which in
| ternational matters have no bearing This
analogy between the Erie and the Pana-
ma Canals is sufficiently close to permit
OF application OF the principles involved,
although the Panama Canal is in a more
favorable position with respect to re-
peal since it is built on territory obtained
from another nation for the purpose.
The Erie Canal is owned by the State
Of New York; / am unable to stats
whether it was built by the State, but it
is under the control Of State officials and
the people Of that State are spending .
large amount for its Improvement: il
must therefore be considered as being
owned by the State. The Erie Canal
connects the lakes with the Hudson River
and thus permits the barges TO reach
New York and New Jersey Would the
| State Of New York, by reason of this
ownership, have the right to charge tolls
through the canal on barges owned out
! side of the State, say in Ohio. Michigan
or New Jersey. and exempt barges owned
/ by citizens of New York State? How
| long would the people of these outside
| States permit this condition to remain!
| Can you imagine a person owning a
| barge travelling between Buffalo and
| Jersey City, the person being a citizen
| OF New Jersey. tamely paying tolls
through the canal. while a similar barge
running between Buffalo and New York
City. and owned by a citizen Of New York
is exempt. Yet. under the propositions
put forth in favor of exemption. the New
| York owner would have the right to con-
! tend I'VE own the canal we can do as
/ we please with it" How long would
| il take the authorities OF the State ~
New Jersey to present their objections
/ to the authorities OF the State Of New
| York? Would We then hear the cry Of
no domination by New Jersey" or Ohio.
or Michigan, or any Of the other States
which would object
| Wherein does the position Of the United
! States in the Panama Canal differ from
! the position of New York with respect
| to the Erie Canal. There, also, do We
! find the agreement in the form Of The
! treaty which is not simply between the
/ United States and England, but between
the United States and the other nations
/ OF the world represented by England
\ New York could construct its canal WITH
| out permission Of the other States. thss
/ being in a more favorable position with
] respect to exemption. while the United
! States apparently could not since a
! treaty was necessary before operations
/ could begin.
| Have We any more right to claim ex-
emption because we own the canal and
can do anything We please with it," than
| has the State Of New York the right to
claim exemption OF tolls on the Eris
/ Canal? One Is a discrimination against
| sister States of the Union operating
under a common agreement. and the
other is a discrimination against the 9th
er nations operating under the treaty
with England.
The fact that the treaty is not simply
with England alone. but with England
| as representative of the other nations
is being discreetly kept silent by the pro-
| exemption side. Obviously. England. as
! representative, must present the pro-
tests for objecting nations. What proof
is there that the objection is by England
| alone?
! II seems to me that if each irGividua,
were to put himself in the place Of the
| Jersey owner in the above example and
/ consider what he would do unG,- the
| circumstances. he would Obtain a ucttor
idea OF the question ! think he would
\ consider that the New York owner was
! being given advantages in the form Of 4
| subsidy at the expense Of the taNnayars
/ Of New York STATE: and he would also
consider that the prohabilities would he
| against the New York owner giving tn,
| people of the State Of New York the
benefit Of this exemption through lower
| rates, when the carrying price is fixed
by the Jersey man across the river.
The proeNcmDtion side is vOciferousIy
attempting to make capital Of the CO.
| lombia treaty exemption. setting this Uu
against the present position of Senator
\ Root Mr.. Root, I think. will b. per
] feCtly able TO Justify his position in IN.
| matter. II might be we'll. however. 10
| call attention TO the following IN on
| nection with this feature.
Using the above example Of the Erie
Canal. IL is clear that the only thing
which would prevent the authorities or
all of the States OF the United States
from granting exemption to the citizens
of one of the other States New Jersey,
for instance, is the Constitution Of the
United States, which is superior to agree
ments between the States themselves. In
international law the agreemer.S in the
form Of treaties are supreme. thcr.. h
ing no written law binding on all or the
nations equivalent to the Constitution.
Hence. an agreement such As Iudsratcd
with respect to the States could b. made
for exemption of one State. and tNiS
would be controlling since al " tie
parties to the agreement had amended
the agreement As / understand il. Eng
land. as representative of the other na.
tons, agreed to this amendment Of the
treaty: and il must be presumed that
England was not acting in indivliTa
but in representative capacity.
can see no reason for claiming that
the Colombia exemption aids the pro-
exemption cause. II the United States
has the right to hold that the any
ma ton clause Of the treaty does not
apply to it, would not France. Germany.
Mexico. Colombia. or any other nation
acting through England. or England her
self have the right to claim that this
dCes not apply to them. The treaty does
not specifically exempt a single nation
from its operations. so II any one has
a right, all have the same right to such
a claim. The fact that amendment to the
treaty is made to specifically exempt
one nation, itself is evidence of the fact
that the original treaty contained no ex-
emption whatever. How is ii possible