Evening star., 1921-06-25
Our Panama Canal.

Uur fdQam6 Caudl.
Whether American ships passing
through the Panama canal shall pay
tolls or not is a question which should
be recognized by the world as domestic
to be decided by Uncle Sam alone.
II the right Of Uncle Sam to exempt
his ships from payment of tolls IS
established it is comparatively imma-
terial whether he, in fact, does or does
not make this exemption.
In the note Of protest Of July 8, 1912,
against certain legislative proposals
then pending in Congress Great Brit
ain declared Q) that the proposition to
exempt American ships engaged in
foreign trade from payment of canal
tolls was in clear violation of the Hay
Pauncefote treaty; (2) that the propo-
sition to levy tolls on American ships
and then to refund these tolls, while
perhaps meeting the letter OF the
treaty, was IA violation Of its spirit;
and 81 that the proposition to exempt
from tolls American ships engaged In
the coastwise trade, while not in viola
ton Of the treaty if strictly confined
to the coastwise trade, was objection
able, because Great Britain did not
believe the United States could con-
fine such exemption in practice to the
coastwise shipping and predicted fu-
ture infractions Of the treaty from
abuse Of the law.
In the canal legislation which fol-
lowed the United States refrained from
directly exempting from tolls-payment
its ships engaged in foreign trade, and
it also refrained from exercising in re-
spect to such ships the privilege which
it possessed and possesses in common
with all the nations Of the world that
are to use the canal Of repaying as a
trade-promoting subsidy to its ship
owners the canal tolls exacted from
them. In the interest of cheap trans
portation between its coasts by water
and land and to regulate the monopoly
of it's transcontinental railroads, the
United States exempted its coastwlse
shipping foreign ships being barred by
law from coastwise trade) from pay
ment Of tolls by an enactment against
which under the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty no protest could possibly lie.
In 1914 in response to President Will
sons appeal this tolls-exemption pro-
vision for coastwise shipping was re-
pealed. President Wilson said in sub
hitting to Congress his request for
this repeal: '1 ask this Of you in sup
port Of the foreign policy Of the ad-
ministration. shall not know how to
deal with other matters Of even greater
delicacy and nearer consequence if you
do not grant it to me in ungrudging
measure"
The reasons Of foreign policy which
compelled the United States in 1914
to alter domestic law regulating the
canal tolls which it should charge its
own ships engaged in coastwise trade,
from which it barred all foreign ships,
were not made public. Whatever they
were it may perhaps be safely assum-
ed that they do not exist today. In
deed, present world conditions suggest
strongly that this is the psychological
moment to secure world recognition,
and especially British recognition, of
our rights and powers in respect to our
own canal.
The Hay-Pauncefote treaty says:
1.-THE canal shall be free and open to
the vessels of commerce and of war
of all nations observing these rules on
terms of entire equality, so that there
shall be no discrimination against any
such nation or its citizens or subjects
in respect Of the conditions or charges
of traffic or otherwise. Such condi-
tions and charges Of traffic shall be
Just and reasonable"
1t is recognized that these words of
the treaty do not prevent the ex-
elusive use of the canal by the United
States for lis warships in time of war.
Refunding the tolls to American mer-
chant ships is the same in effect as
remitting the tolls, since the United
States is owner. But to deny to the
United States the right to refund canal
tolls, if it wishes, is to penalize owner.
ship of the canal. Its effect is to de-
clare that the United States, the build
er and the owner of the canal, alone
among the nations Of the world, is un-
der the obligation not to subsidize its
shipping by refunding Tor reimbursing)
to them their canal tolls. England and
Germany, for example, which have put
nothing into the canal, may adopt this
recognized and utilized method of trade
promotion, but the United States,
which has put over $4oo, 200, 900 into
the canal, may not have the same priv
uege.
One Of the incidental benefits which
we are to enjoy in partial compensa-
tion for our world-war sacrifices is the
development of our merchant marine
and Of our foreign trade. Tho Hay.
Pauncefote treaty must be so construed
as neither to forbid our exclusive use
of our canal for our warships in time
of war nor to embarrass and cripple
our use Of it for trade e-promotion pur-
poses in time of peace. We have tacit-
1y assented under the mandate system
20 treatment and use as their own by
the other powers Of former German
colonial territory all over the world.
Reasonable and decent reciprocity
would he observed If in this connectjon