Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1921-12-16

eonceue,~ II 1ul generosity, the craftsmanship OF
the representatives OF the other nations, who have
received the American proposals so cordially and
have acted on them so sympathetically. E.
RIGHT AND E~XPEDIENCY!! y
Two principal elements enter into the consider
alton Of the Panama tolls questionable element Of
right and that of expediency. Senator Borah has
made it known that he intends to press for action
on his proposal to have American coastwise vessels
exempted from the payment of canal tolls, the plan
first built and which was subsequently revoked
when further light on the subject was obtained.
On the question OF right, we must consider the
obligation of the United States to carry out faith
tully whatever Agreements it has made regardless
OF whether those agreements are advantageous or
Instantaneous to it. On this point there can be
no doubt. A nation must live up to it's obligations.
If 1t has assumed Obligations which prove inconve-
nlent tor it, it must endure the consequences. In no
case must an agreement sole1nnly entered into be
violated directly or indirestly.
Senator Borah has the support of the Manu-,
tacturers' RECORD" in his contention that the coun-
try has the right to exempt certain Of it's vessels
from the payment of tolls. This publication attrib-
payment of tolls to propaganda by railroads, bank
ing interests, etc. 1t would be equally logical to re-
tort that the oppositite policy originates in the self
Ilsh desire OF coastwise cities, including Baltimore,
where the Manufacturers Record" is published,
to enjoy special trade privileges for which the rest
OF the country must pay. Probably arguments i'll
support of either policy must be inspected with the
possibility in view of the existence of an Interior
motive. 1t is not likely that much, if anything, that
is new can be offered on this subject. The whole
ground has been pretty thoroughly covered, and
about all that is possible now is to repeat the state
Inents of'fact and the arguments which have already
been given in various forms since the controversy
first began. If there is a shadow of doubt permissi-
bic from the wording OF the treaty itself as to lust
what was intended by the. provision that the canal
should be free to the use of all nations on equal
terms, it is permissible to inquire what the probab-
'ntles are as to the reasons why such an arrange
ment was made. Under the old Clayton-Bulwer
treaty, the United States and Great Britain assumed
Jointly the responsibility for the construction of all
lnter-oceanio canal, and the control thereof. It was
recognized that both countries were vitality interest
ed in the construction of such a canal and in it's con-
troll when constructed. Subsequently, Great Britain
desired to withdraw from its share of the RESPONSE
b1lity, and the United States desired to assume that
responsibility, and a new treaty was made embody-
ing the essential features of the old one with the
single exception that the United States assumed and
was coded complete control and complete RESPONSE
bility.
1t is reasonable then to inquire whether or not
it would have been likely that Great Britain would
assent to a treaty concerning a great waterway in,
which she was interested which permitted the other
party to the treaty to; enjoy special advantages
which the country had not enjoyed under the fore
going treaty. There is no hint in the new treaty of
any change in the meaning Of terms, and all the es-
sentlal features of the former document are recapit-
ulated. IT seems to be thoroughly reasonable to
suppose that in making a new treaty, the sole pur-
pose OF which was to transfer rights of ownership
and control, if there shad been an abandonment Of
the principle of complete equality in the matter Of
tolls under any circumstances, and if such abandon
'ment had been contemplated it would have been
stated in specific terms, because of its departure
from the clear purpose of the original document.
From this standpoint, as well as from the literal in
depreciation OF the treaty, it seems clear that it was
'fnfnn6a1 afh1< all <ra fSS ,ec.~-, 1-z..-l IT, ---f
should go on the same basis. If that is true, the
United States committed itself then to that policy,
and stands so committed now, and can under no cir
'cunstances waver in its fnlfillment of the obligation
which it definitely assumed.
If it should be decided that the United States
has the right to discriminate in favor of its own traf-
.fic, the question then arises whether or not it is ex-
Ipedicnt for it to: do so.xThe result of such discrin-
nations would be to give the coast cities of both east
and west and the country Immediately back of each
an enormous advantage in freight facilities over the
territory in the interior. The vast production region
of the Mississippi Valley would be at an enormous
disadvantage in all matters of freight as compared
with the narrow fringe of territory along either
coast. The maintenance of the canal costs money
and the people of the country, including those Of
the central region, would be taxing themselves to
pay for the use Of the canal by such vessels as were
permitted to pass through it free. The central re-
order toprovide funds wherewith special advantages
might be given tothe manufacturing regions Of 9th
Ter districts, and would thus be5required to tax ITSELF
Tor its own Disadvantages Such a proposition seems
absurd on it's face, and the argument Of expedicncyl
|vanishes into thin air.
Expediency cannot affect right. If our obliga-l
ton lies in a certain direction. the question. is settled
without argument, and from that standpoint ex
[emption sof coastWise traffic from, TIL. payment of
tolls seems out of the question. Equally oiit d ffel
question does II appear from the standpoint Of sound
business expediency, because III Isl utterly unfair to|
tax one section Al order that special advantages may