New-York tribune., 1920-12-15
Coastuise Shipping
May Be Exempted From Canal
Tolls, 1t Is Argued

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: In recent issue Of The Trib-
une George W. Wickersham enters
a protest against the exemption Of
United States vessels from the payment
of tolls in going through the Panama
Canal. Like most persons who take
his side Of this question, he is dead
sure that he is right, that his view Of
the matter-the view of Senators Root
and Brandegee, of Joseph H. Choate
and other antis-is the only one for
men of honor to take. Where does this
leave President Taft, Secretary Knox,
Senator Lodge, David Jayne Hill
and other we'll known, respectable be-
levers in the right of the United States
to exemption for its coastwise ship
ping? Mr.. Wickersham asserts that
Congress has formally ranged itself on
his side, that "the decision of the Sen
ate by vote in which the representa-
tlves of both parties concurred-agreed
to by the House Of representatives.
rejected the contention of the pro-
exemptionistsl and repealed the ex-
emption." As a matter of fact, this
vote did not reject the contention. II
was qualified by the provision: THE
passage of this act shall not be cen
strued Or held as waiver or relin-
quishment Of any right the United
States may have under the treaty with
Great Britain ratified the 2lst Of Feb
ruary, 1902"
Mr.. Wickersham brings up the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty of 1850, and sayss
I'm 1900 the provisions of this treaty
were modified by the Hay-Pauncefots
treaty" The Hay-Pauncefote treaty
Of 1900 was never ratified But neither
this repudiated treaty nor the present
treaty can properly be said to modify
the Clayton Bulwer treaty. Each ex-
pressly superseded the older one, thus
doing away with it.
The preamble of the -Pauncefote
treaty does declare the purpose Of pre-
serving a general principle of "neu-
tralization" established in the Clayton
Bulwer treaty. But this declaration
is not a stipulation.
Does any article of the Hay-Paunce-
tote treaty inhibit the exemption OF
our shipping from the payment OF tolls?
Rule l under Article III requires
equality Of terms without discrimina-
ton. You regard this requirement az
applying to all our merchant shipping.
There is not room here for what might
be said to the contrary. l will only
mention that we have had treaties con-
tanning similar provisions which have
been construed by both parties es not
applying to vessels engaged in coast
wise trade To quote from but two OF
them:
Julv 5. 1915. .oith Great Britain. Article g
No higher or other duties charges sha'i
be imposed IN any OF the ports OF the United
States on British vessels than those payable
In the same ports by vessels of the United
States. nor in the ports of any of his bri'ah-
mic majesty's territories IN Europe on the
vessels OF the United States than shall os
payable in the same ports British vessels
November ee, is9}, ,cith Japor Article -
No duties OF tonnage harbor piiotage. hsh'-
house. quarantine. or other similar or corre'
spending duties, shall be imposed In tne
ports of the territories OF either country
upon the vessels OF the other country when
shall be equally and under the same ecndi-
tions be imposed In the like cases on nationA
vessels In general vessels OF the most Ia
vored nation. Such equality OF treatment
shall apply reciprocaily to the respective
vessels. from whatever port or place tney
may arrive and whatever may be their
place OF destination.
In both of these cases and In the
other similar cases that might be cited
it has been held that exemption or ia
voring of coastwise shipping by the
territorial power was not a violation
of the treaty. JOHN BIGELo".
Washington, D. c.. Dec. o. 1920.