A BRITISH VIEW. In view of tho president's request that tho tolls provision of tho Panama j canal act bo repealed, it is interesting I to note that all the British authoritiov nro not agreed that this country wont beyond its rights in the mnttor when tho exemption in favor of Amorieau vcj5o!s was made. Tho London Law Review, which is said to bo th higbe-it rtuthoritv among British le?a j !. Ina f -.,r.. i ,.U l u h r th .11 v, , 1 and of American rights in the Panama canal iu these words: "To sum up. It la reasonably arpruable: "(A) That the United, Slates can HUp-port HUp-port Its arllnn on tho preelno worda of the material nrllclos of tho treaty, that Its cniJo Is strengthened by reference to the prcainblo and context and that Its ra.so Ik difficult to challenge on grounds of general Justice. "(U) There Is no International obligation obli-gation to submit the construction of legislative act to any process of arbitration, arbitra-tion, and. "(C) That any aggrieved party haj an appropriate and Impartial and a competent com-petent tribunal In the supreme court of the United Slates." This summing up was made in tho issue of tho Law Review for November, 1012, after the exemption had been mado and the clamor began ou the other oth-er sido of the water. It bears out the contention, in somo degree at least, of tho American statesmen who wcro responsible re-sponsible for it in tho first place as well as those who aro "now opposed to tho policy of tho president in scoking its repeal on the grougd that treaty rights havo been violated. Thoso who blindly follow the administration would do well to pnuFC long enough for reflection.