The Morning Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Okla.) 1919-1927, 1920-07-25
r. A. IATTA.

The independence of America and
Americans is a phrase to conjure
with. Theoretically IL Is the very
bedrock of American nationality. We
are as a people divided at the mo-
ment as to the best way to maintain
that Independence. Yet there is
evidence that we are less indepen-
dent as n nation than We know;
that our independence In fact Is
much less than II seems in theory.
Eight years ago the Baltimore
convention. which nominated Wood
row Wilson for the presidency. set
him on "A platform In which a prom
inent plank pledged the party to ad-
minister the then new Panama
canal In such manner as to permit
ships free passage
through It.
1t was a popular proposition at
the time. America had furnished
the men and the millions necessary
to construct the canal; hers was
the responsibility Tor it's mainten-
ance. In her reposed the title deeds
of ownership. England had raised
the question that under an exchange
of notes during the early days of the
work America pledged herself to
operate the canal on terms of equal
ity to all nations. the specific defi-
milton OF that being that the ships
OF every nation should have equal
tights to the use OF the canal on
common terms. only the English
mind, II was believed at the time,
could read into such an agreement
an obligation on the part of rhe
United States to deny Its own ma
tionals any special privileges based
on American ownership and con-
troll Of the canal.
But England did raise the point
II was pending as diplomatic Is
sue at the time the 1912 campaign
was being waged. and the democrats
very properly denied the English
viewpoint and pledged their candi-
date to combat the English theory,
The President Rcpudiatcs Platform.
The action of the candidate when
no became president, and of the
party when It fell under his domi-
nation. Is now, unhappily. historical
record. Suffice Il to say that the
platform was repudiated and the
English viewpoint met In most
undignified and subservient man
ner. Thus there came into existence
precedent which seems to recog-
nize the just right of foreign gov
ernments to protest against the
United states as a government con-
fering any benefits on it's nationals
which II does not stand ready to
confer on the nationals OF any other
government.
When this controversy was be-
ing debated In the congress and the
president was moving with all OF
his influence and authority to have
his wishes complied with. a sem
ator asked the question:
"If we are to admit that the right
of ownership confers on our gov
ernment no national advantages
which we may or may not extend
to our nationals who may be COM
peting with foreign shipping inter-
ests. of what worth IN this monu-
mental achievement to America ?"
That question has never been sat
isfactorily answered. Nor will II
| ever be; for the easily perceived
reason that It Is impossible to answer
| II. It Is significant. OF the divergent
views Of the two major parties In
] our politics that now, eight years
| later, the republican party has writ
| ten into It's platform a pledge 10
grant free passage through the canal
| TO American owned vessels. thus
| for the first time exerting a virile
| American policy with respect 10
| that waterway and putting the
| party squarely In opposition to the
| English viewpoint and purposes
which have come to have very
| perilous weight in the decisions Of
our own government,
| II Is now, with this brief resume
Of diplomatic and political water
that long since passed under the
bridge, possible TO understand clear
ly the next step in England's steady