| OCR Text |
Show PANAMA CANAL TOLLS I vil. -The Hay Paunoefote Treaty 1900 TREATY BASIS GREAT ' BRITAIN CLAIM The Hay Pauncefote In stmment Sett Forth Provisions Pro-visions for Canal WorK. BY rREDERJO J. IIASKIN When the United States came to reopen re-open with England the question of building an i it hmiaa, canal, la the hop of securing terms different from thoee contained in the ('laytonBuiwer treaty, an instrument wae negotiated by Secretary Secre-tary Hay and Iord Pauncefote, embodying em-bodying these change, and it wae laid before the senate in February, 1900. That body did not approve ome of the provisions in the treaty ae it then stood, and ao attacnen to it numeroue amendments, inferestislly suggesting to F.ngland that the treaty at amended nn'sined the term upon which an agreement could le reached. Secretary Hay tooh the matter up with the Brit iah embassador once more, and they wete able to compute the difference . betwe u the I'nitrd State eenate and the Kogliah government. In November W of the me vear the new draft of the 7 proponed treaty wa laid before the enate. It contained nearlv all the e ential feature, of the former instrument instru-ment but eomewhat modified the amendment written in br the eenate. Both form of thi treaty agreed to the preservation of the principle of utraliamtion act up in the ' layton-lfulwer layton-lfulwer treatv, and both forma alao pro-vided pro-vided that the canal ahould be con at rue ted under the auapicea of the l'nited Mtatea alone. The treaty aa eventually ratified declared that ita purpose waa "to remove any objection that u.ight ariae'' out of the " lay tun Hulwer treatv "to the conatrnrtiag of etich a canal nnder the auepicea of the government of the l'nited States, with O'ontmued on page -1 I I countries traversed akall affect the ganertl prlncipla of eutraliiatloa or tkc obligation of the two countries. A study of the British note shows that ia the face of all these ttiptlt I tloaa roareroing thtpe of war Rngltnd now waivaii tha right to eourider tbote stipulations aa applying to the ships of war of tha L'nlted States. In the M of tho article which tart that change of sovereignty shall not affect the general principle of neutralization I of the canal, tho British foreign office declares that our having become ov .reign of the canal removes tho right of England to ujueetioa our title to tha rights of war in it. Ia tho face of provisions which net forth that no nation na-tion shsll commit anv art of war in tha canal Knglnnd espreselv eiempts the l'nlted States from inclusion among tkc nations for hidden thus to do. Mat Applicable to Wat. Rome have argued again and again that whea England coneadea that these provisioaa with reference to tbipa of war do not applv to tho tbipa of tho United States, it ! unreasonable to as tume that those with reference to ahip of commerce applr anv more to the ships of the I'nited Htatea. Othera feel that a reasonable construction of tha treatv would give to England tho right to insist upon neutralisation the tort of nentratiaatioa that would include the I'nited .States at to thipa of war aa well aa to abipa of commerce, and that England's renunciation of itt right to demand a neutral canal, including tha I'nited ettatct at a party to tho neu-tralitv. neu-tralitv. arguet a treat generoaity upon the part of tho Briith government a generosity which would make it, in the language of Senator Boot, "tlipperr" for ut to refute the British construe-tlon construe-tlon with reference to the toll quettion and certainly to to refute even to ar bitratc. Tha other aide contenda that to far at general shinning la concerned it ia readv to recognize tho British contention, con-tention, hut not to far aa coastwise traffic it concerned. In view of tho readv willingness to concede our right to fortifv and defend tho cana) it it interesting to look back over the debates la con great over the construction of the treaty whea the quettion of fortifying the canal waa tip. At that time there waa a very ttrong. patriotic and intelligent minority minor-ity in eongreet who insisted that the United S'stea had n right to fortifv the canal They atterted that If ' the treatv meant anything it meant that the canal ahall be ueetral and that the wnnhipt of all nationt. In war at In peace, should be permitted to uaa It. Thev aaaerted that England could and probablv would rightfully oppose our determination to fortifv the canal and to close it to o:i- oneinios in eato of war. Their argumenti came near win ning. Todav England concede every thing the fortificatinniats ever asked. Wat it a conceseinn of right, of generoaity generoa-ity or of ataumed necessity Tomorrow: PANAMA CANAL TOLLS Vin. Traffic and Shipping Eouten. 1900 TREATY BASIS OF GREAT BRITAIN CLAIM (t oatmued from tge out impairing toe general principle ot neutralisation eataHished iu article a" of the Clayton GTiwer treatv. "Osnsral Prlndpla." The "general uriar.iple" of aoutral lung laid down therein it coutaiued in a clause which provided that the two govsrsmentt sater into ths treaty, not only "to arcornplitb a particular ob iect. but alto to ettablith a general .priaciple" aad that they therefore sgreed that all iathmiau commnnira tioat, aad particularly interoceanic commuaieationa, thould he protected by ths two govetamsata. In graating thia protection, however, it wat agreed that no rbsrgss or conditions of traffic not approved bv the two goverumeott oould be made; that these coaditiont and charget should be the taiae to both countries; aad that they thould alto be the same to other nations upon their engaging to join with the United States and England in protecting thn canal. The first article of the new treaty provides that it ia to auparsede the Clayton Bulwer treaty. The second ar tlels permitt the ronitructlon of the canal bv the United States at itt own cost, bv i" or loam to corporations or Individuals, or through subscriptions to or purchase of stork or thsret, anil that ''subject to the provisioat of the treaty" it ahould have and enjoy all the righta incident to ittj eoaitruction, at well st tha exclusive right of providing provid-ing for tha regulation snd management manage-ment of the ctntl The third article set. forth that the United Slates adopts aa a baait of neu tralizatios tubttantiallv the rulet for the free nsvigstion of the Suez canal, the specifit- rules provided being tix in number. The firit of these rulet pro videt that the canal shall be open and free to the vesselt of commerce snd of war of all nations observing them, upon terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination agsintt any tueh nation or its people; and fur thsr, that all the eonditiont and charget are to be met and equitable. Contention la Denial. It is interesting to note in eonncc tlon with thia rule that while the British contention it a denial of the right of tha I'nited Mtetet to exempt avea iu eoaatwise shipping from the application of the pnnciplea laid down therein, it does aow concede that the rule no longer has aay application to the "ships of war" of ths United States. Sir Edward Grey contend! that when the United States acquired the territory' oa which the canal it being be-ing couatructed, it etvne into the right to take such measures as might bo nec essary for securing the detente of the country, aad that therefore the rule will not apply to oar ships of war, although al-though it does apply to our ships ol commerce. He ssyt thst this rignt or the United States was not recognized in the Hav-Pauacefote treaty, in to many words, aa the rights uf Egypt and Turkey are recognised in the sue canal treaty, because the United State-was State-was not at that time the owner of the territory through which the canal extends. ex-tends. The second rule of she tix provides that the canal shall never be block aded ; that ao aet of war ahall ever be exercised in It, that ao act of hostility hostil-ity shall be committed tn it. The United States it gavea the right to police po-lice it to protect it against lawless nets and disorder. The British govern ment now concedes that for the united Mate- to exercise "righta of war" within the canal, a thing directSupro hibited by the treaty, will notr"Ce a violatioa of its terms, because of our acquisition of sovereign righta in the canal zone. No War tn Canal. The thrid rule provides that vessels of war of a belligerent shall not rt victual nor take any atoret in the canal, except tnch aa may bo strictly neeea-aery, neeea-aery, and that they shall be seat through the canal with the least possible pos-sible delay. The rule applies to captured cap-tured prises aa well at to war vesselt. The fourth rule declares that no na tion at war shall embark or disembark disem-bark troopt, munitions of war or warlike war-like materials in the canal except iu emergencies, and then not for war pur pqaet. The fifth rule provides that the rights under the canal thai! extend three miles out to tea at either ead; that no war vessel of a belligerent shall stay ia these waters for more than twenty-four hours at one time, except ia distress; and that the warships of one belligerent ahall not depart within twenty-four hours of the departure ot other belligerent warships. The eixth rule providee that the plant, eetablishmente, buildings and all worka neeettarv to the const ruction, maintenance and operation of the canal shall be deemed a part of it, and at all times shall be immune from attack or injury by belligerents and from acts calculated to impair their usefulness. Ths fourth and last artiels of the treaty, except the one setting forth its ratification, provides that no change of territorial sovereignty or of the inter nations! relations of the country or |
