Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-05-28

is among "all nations observing" the
| canal rules.
The decision by that umpire of this
issue would almost certainly not conform
to the claims and concessions of either
the United States or Great Britain. The
| United States is willing to construe the
| treaty as imposing an obligation to take
no unfair ADVANTAGE of its ownership of
the canal to discriminate in favor of its
own ships of commerce against similar
ships of =other nations competing for for
eign trade in time Of peace. 1t claims
all the rights of sovereignty, ownership
and exclusive use Of the canal in time of
war in whichlit is engaged. 1t has ex-
pressed the opinion that American ships
| engaged in the coastwise trade are not
included in its obligations in respect to
ships of commerce.
| Great Britain has been and apparently
is willing to construe the treaty as con-
sistent with the fullest exercise of SOW
ereignty. and exclusive use by us in time
of war in which the United States is en-
gagged. but holds that equality in tolls
and general treatment is promised to all
ships of commerce, including those OF
the United States, and is inclined to be-
lieve~ that coastwise ships fall within
this obligation.
An umpire would decide whether the
United States was included among "all
nations to. whom the rules which it
made as. owner of the canal should
apply. If It. is so included equality of
treatment is exacted in respect to ships
of war as we'll as ships of commerce.
and exclusive absolute and unlimited
right to the use of the canal in time
of war is gone. If it is not SO includ-
ed the United States can discriminate
as far as it p'eases in wise discretion
against British ships of commerce in
competition with its own.
The indications point to the existence
in tthe 1ast, and to the wisdom of con-
tinuance in the future, of a gentle
mans agreement a StateSmans UNI
Outstanding between the United States
and Great Britain as to the conStruc-
ton to be put upon the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty in its application to the new and
unforeseen conditions of an American
owned canal at Panama, and that this
understanding was and is a compromise
under which absolute military SOW
ereignty of the canal by the United
States is recognized and equality of
tolls: to ships of commerce of all ma
tons is conceded. At a time when the
United States was not absolute owner of
the canal and sovereign of the canal strip
it promised certain rules which made no
expressed reservation of rights and pow
ers outside of these rules, which it would
possess if it became sovereign. When it
became canal-owner and sovereign, it is
conceded that the rules if they are held
to have applied previously to the United
States suffered from that fact alone ma
terial modification. Great Britain is will
ing to concede that the United States is
honorably discharged from observance of
the rules which limit our military pro-
lection of the canal to a mere military
policing to prevent disorders, and apparent
ly forbid us to make belligerent use of
the canal when engaged in war The
change of conditions is conceded to take
the United States out of the strict and
equal application of all the rules but the
hrst. Great Britain'S contention is that
the first rule stands, though the others
fail. The United States has in effect con-
ceded that the rule of equality of treat
ment to ships of commerce in time of
peace may fairly continue to apply to
II, and the only issue is whether coast
wise ships are ships of commerce, and
whether a promise OF equal tolls can be
construed into promise of unequal tolls
to the disadvantage of the United States
by preventing it from refunding tolls.
An umpire would be apt to find either
that all five rules apply to the United
States or none at all. Surely the natural
ending of such a controversy as that out
lined is not a deadlock or arbitration by
a third party. but a conference in the
nature OF arbitration between the two ma
tons Tor friendly discussion and agree
ment.