OCR Text |
Show THE BRITISH IMPUDENCE. Tho surprising interference of the British Embassy in this country with respect to legislation proposed in Congress Con-gress for the government of tho Panama Pan-ama Canal is as unwelcome as it is sensational. There is no doubt whatever what-ever to the absolute right of tho United States to tho full control, regulation, and management of the Panama Canal. It is true that under the first treaty negotiated by Secretary Hay with tho Gritish Government there was some doubt about this, and the old Bulwer-Clayton Bulwer-Clayton treaty was not absolutely repealed. re-pealed. But, although somo Senators were satisfied with that treaty in its ambiguous state, the Senate as a whole rejected it; then the new Ilay-Pauuce-.fote treaty was negotiated, which gave to the United States the absolute control con-trol of .the canal, specifically abrogating abrogat-ing the Bulwer-Clayton treaty. . There appears to be in this country, however, a remnant of the old idea that wo should share equally in that canal with other powers; and there is, of course, au itching among other powers pow-ers to have their fingers in the pie. But the United States built the canal without with-out an; hell). It has the complete right to the management and control, and will exercise its right in its' own way. Yet it is contended that wc are estopped from any favoritism toward our own shipping by Section 1 of Article Arti-cle 2 of the Treaty which says: The canal shall bo free and open to the vesaels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these rules Lthe rules made by Jhe United States on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against anv mich na-(tlon, na-(tlon, or Its citizens or subjects In respect re-spect to the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be Just and equitable. This section in itself is couclusivc upon the point that the United St?tes shall allow all nations to use the canal on equal terms; but inasmuch as its right to regulate and control is absolute, abso-lute, and as the United States has built the canal, to say that it, bhall not exercise any discrimination in favor of its own vessels is absurd. It may do so if it likes. All that other nations can insist upon in this treat; is that there shall be no discrimination as among them. That is. the United States shall not discriminate against Germany, in favor of Great Britain, nor in favor of Prance as against Russia, and so all along the line. That is all that the words quoted mean. Further, clinching the point, read Section 5 article 3, which says; The provisions of this article shall apply ap-ply lo watcra adjacent to the canal, within three marine miles of either end. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not remain In such watera longer than 24 hours at any one time, except In caae of distress, and In such case shall depart de-part as soon ae possible, but a vessel of war of one belligerent shall not depart within 2-1 hours from the departure of a vessel of war of the other belligerent. It is a very clear case that this refers not to any vessel of war of the United States, for as the canal zone is specifically specific-ally United States territory, it would be absurd to say this country could not keep its war ships'in those waters more thnn 21 hours at a time, or that the j three-mile limit is to be enforced against the United Stales within it's own waters. It would also be absurd to construe this article as limiting the vessels of war of the United States in their action within the adjacent waters of the canal. The clear intent and meaning of all this is that the United States in making the treaty agreed to certain impartial regulations with respect to the handling of the vessels of commerce and of war of other nations. There was no intent nnd there chh be no reasonable interpretation inter-pretation placed upon the language, that would allow of the United States being bound with respect to the ii3e of its own property, in its own territory and waters, by rules that, it im-poses im-poses upon other nations; and with respect re-spect to these rules giving tho use of the canal by other nations and citizens and subjects of those nations, the same as to our own, All that, can be asked is that I here shnll be no discrimination as among others, and that tho regulations, regula-tions, tolls, and requirements shall bo fair anil equal as among those nations nnd their subjects. The United Stales is fho owner and manager and the complete com-plete master of the canal. It can blow it up if it wants to. or it can allow ships to go through or not, as it pleases. It can bar all foreign war ships from tho use of I he canal, or it can at any time, on any pretext that it chooses, bar tho passage of any vessel whatever from that canal. The idea that wc owe nuy thing to other nations with respect to this canal, as compared with bur duty lo ourselves and to our own shipping, is altogether preposterous, and the contention which reads into Section 1 of Article .'! the wholly unbusinesslike proposition that we are ourselves bound by tho regulations regula-tions that we will niako as to lolls for vessels of other nations using tho cnnal, is too preposterous for anv armimmit. The treaty is to be read as a whole, and not. to bo interpreted by auy special spe-cial section or particular sentence. The idea upon which the British protest pro-test is founded, apparently would prevent pre-vent tho United States, in case it found a vessel of a nation with which we are at war in the waters adjacent to tuo canal, or in the caual itself, from making mak-ing an attack upon itj but that wo would be bound to lot it alone until it had 24 hours tho start in going out of tho harbor. Tho absoluto folly of any such contention as this is manifest. There would bo no moro obligatiou upon us lo allow a war vessel of a nation na-tion which wo were fighting to got away under. such circumstances, than there would bo for us to do the like in New York harbor, or to give a foreign army that might invade our shores 2-i hours to escape, if it witshed tho opportunity. It is high time that this foolish sentimentality senti-mentality were banished in the treatment treat-ment of the Panama canal question, and that wc return to a basis of sane sense in discussing tho matter. Tho basic proposition is that tho United States owns the canal, and can do what it likes with it. It has ougagod by treaty with other powers that it will treat theso powers equally in the use of that canal; but thcro is absolutory no roa-son roa-son why we should enter "into any treaty or obligations with any power whatever, as to the use of that canal by our own shippers, or by our own government, and neither havo wo done so. As to our own shipping for commercial commer-cial purposes, we are absolutely freo,1 and no foreign country has a possible right to claim any partnership with us therein. And with respect to legislation pending in Congress, it is sheer impudence impu-dence ior Great Britain or any other country to express any opinion." If we pass an3' law or do any act supposed tO( be against anr foreign intorest it will be timo enough to make complaint, but to call a halt before, is an unwarranted unwar-ranted interference that cannot bo tolerated. |