The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. SATURDAY, JULY 13, 1912. PANAMA CANAL DUES.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 167, 13 July 1912, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

SATURDAY, JULY 13, 1912. PANAMA CANAL DUES.

■ -^—— _ For the cause that lacks assist wee, For the wrong tluit needs resistance, For the future in the distance, And the good that wo can do. _________________________S___S__S_____

As the Panama Canal approaches completion it becomes Dece-sary for the American Government to decide upon the terms on which the great waterway may be used by its own and foreign shipping. And it was hardily to be expected that so momentous and complicated a question could be settled without a certain amount of friction and controversy. A Canal (BUI has been before the Senate for some months past, and certain important decisions have already been reached. Congress has resolved to fortify the Canal—which the American, certainly have -the right to do in terms of the amended Hay-Pauncefote treat}-; and it .has also resolved to let American coasting vessels use .be Canal free of tolls. As we have already explained, the object of this arrangement is to en-our-age the mercantile marine and to assist in breaking down the railway freight monopoly on the -trans-continental, lines. Canada has naturally objected to this course, but considering that the Americans constructed the Canal and paid for it, tbe proposal to regulate their own coastal trade as they please is at least defensible. But w_*n we come to the proposal to diser % iuate. against all foreign shipping by means of differentia.! tolls the matter assumes a very different complexion, and it is over ! this question that the present diplomatic difficulty between England and America has arisen. Po far as treaty rights are -Ozrcerned there is no possibility of dispute. A special clause in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of 1901 was devoted to this question of dues, and it. lays down the principle that "the Canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and war of all nations on terms of entire equality." There can be no mistake about the literal meaning of this; but while America's diplomatic obligations in .his matter are quite clear, it is natural that now the Canal is almost ready for trade, Iter statesmen and financiers should realize more acutely than before that if this arrangement is carried out the American people will have spent seventy or eighty millions of money to provide splendid mercantile facilities for •their most dangerous commercial and political rivals. This view of the position has gathered .irength rapidly in the United States of late, and President Taft was co far influenced by it that a few months ago in a message to Congress be made a suggestion that aroused great excitement in England and America ait the time. "We own the canal.'' said . fr. Taft. "7ft was our money that built it. We have the right to charge tolls for its use. Those tolls must he the same to everyone; 'but when we arc dealing with our own ships, the practice of many "Governments of subsidising their own merchant vessels is so well established in general that a subsidy equal to the tolls, an equivalent remission of tolls, can, not be held to be a discrimination in the use of the canal." This proposal may fairly be said to do more justice to Mr. Taft's legal training than to his sense of diplomatic rectitude; and it bad the effect of bringing the whole question at once within the range or international controversy. The opposition to Mr Taft*. proposal was naturally strongest on the eastern side of the Atlantic. But it is noteworthy that more than one American ■ journal of standing denounced this implied evasion of treaty right- as unworthy of the nation's dignity. In England tbe outcry was loud, fierce, ami long sustained. The "Manchester Guardian," the "Morning Post," the "Saturday Review," and other leading newspapers, irrespective of their political views, were strongly antagonistic. The following characteristic passage from the "Outlook" ma}- serve to give some idea of the intensity of feeling that President Taffs unlucky hint excited at Home; "It is obvious that, if thi_ barefaced robbery is to be used against British vessels of commerce, the question mnv require the effective consideration of British vessels of war. Or will the Radical Government tolerate the tearing up of a Treaty intended to guarantee our trade and commerce against being crushed out of existence, or at least our, of profitable competition—which is the same thing— grand larceny of this description? Besides our home trade with the East of Asia, the whole of the Canadian trade between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts would be rendered incapable of meeting United State, competition." Naturally this vigorous language appealed more strongly to English than to American hearers, but it did not fail to produce a certain amount of impres-s-ion iii official quarters at Washington. Eventually, after some hesitation, the American Government decided to withdraw from what seemed to he an untenable position, and Secretary Stimson formally announced that he had reached the conclusion that though the Americans had both legal and moral rights to do as they pleased with their own mercantile marine, "it would be unnecessary and unwise, as a matter of policy, for the United Ptates to refund tolls to be paid by American vessels passing through the Panama C**"* l "

This announcement seemed to put President _"_.-_ rebate proposals entirely out of the question. But it 5a evident that during the -lection, campaign a certain amount of public attention has been drawn to ttlie matter, and the pressure of public opinion is being steadily applied at Washington. In view of the precarious nature of Mr Taft's position and tihe difficulty of predicting the result of the presidential contest, the President .would be more than human if 'he did not attempt at least to conciliate public sentiment on this great naxtionail issue. Tt is probably owing 'to official knowledge of all this that t_e Briti_ii Government 'has now taken the decisive step of requesting the American Government to bold back the Canal Bill till Mr Bryce, our ambassador at Washington, has presented the "British view of the case. It is to be "hoped that it wiU be found possible to discuss the whole question in a perfectly amicable way; but it must be owned that the tone of that section of the American public which favours preferential treatment for American vessels does not promise well for the future. The position taken up by this party may be expressed in the words of Mr l/ewis Nixon, the celebrated American shipbuilder, who recently remarked in the '••Editorial 'Review": "If we only wish to prefer out own ships in the use -of the Canal, 'there is nothing in existing treaties to prevent it, except an -unfair interpretation of the Hay-Pan ncefote treaty; anil if this be -cited against us steps should be taken for it. prompt abrogation." Wo do not see how the clause of the Hay-Paunee-fote treaty that we have quoted can bear more than one construction. But while admitting 'that England's rights are specifically defined and protected by this treaty, it may be open to discussion whether it is worth our while to insist upon them at the risk of provoking an .acrimonious and dangerous quarrel with the Americans. After all, it is not unnatural that the Americans having, as .President Tafit says, built and paid for the Canal themselves, should want to get the largest possible amount of profit from its use. And if no other means of settlement seem likely to produce -ati_.a<stoTy results, this is certainly a case Which, in view of the great international issues involved, might well be .eferred to the Hague Tribunal for adjudication.