The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1914. THE PANAMA TOLLS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLV, Issue 79, 2 April 1914, Page 4

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

THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1914. THE PANAMA TOLLS.

For the tauxe the* but* eetUtanee, For the vmeong that noede resistance, For the future m the dittamee, Amd the good that toe cm A).

President -Wileaa hae scored a great political and moral victory by inducing the Bouse of Representatives to repeal the Panama Canal Bill. By a (majority of 86 the Lower Houee of Congress has resolved that no discrimination shall be made in favour of American vessels passing through the Canal; -and it is certain that though the opposition to the President's views » stronger in the Senate than in the House of Representatives, the course now taken by the Lower House will practically decide the fate of the measure. So far as the political aspects of this controverey are concerned, President Wilson has performed an extraordinary feat in inducing the American people and Congress to accept his view of the situation. For there ie m> doubt that when the Canal Bill was paeeed the general consensus of public feeling in the United States was sfcTongly against any concession to foredgnexß, and ikeen resentment wae expressed by leading public men of all parties at the criticism to which the Bill was subjected in England and throughout Europe. That President Wilson has been able to bend not only his own party but American public opinion to his will is a striking proof of the ascendancy he has secured, and the personal and moral influence that he exercises up-on hie fellow countrymen, even in the caise of many who are, politically speaking, attached, not to the Government, but to the Opposition.

WTiat distinguishes this particular controversy from nearly all other contemporary politieai incidents of an international character is <He strong moral element tbat has been imported into the discussion. There is no doubt that the Americans comld make out quite a plausible case in eupport of their contention that the disputed clause of the HayPauneefote treaty could be interpreted co v to justify preferential treatment for American shipping. But President Witeon, with the instinct of a true statesman, realised in time that this was a question whioh could not safely 'be debated in accordance with the strict letter of the 'law. The obvious intention and purpose of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty -was to secure for England ami all other nations the same rights as the Americans in the use of the Canal, and it wae on this basis that President Wilson consented to discuss the question. In doing co, he may have incurred the enmity of the belligerent " jingo" section of the Democratic party, who can see nothing in his attitude but a desire to truckle to England and to buy her favour. But it is now clear that the vast majority of the American people fully appreciate the more elevated and dignified conception of public duty that President Wilson 'has adopted; and we can fee certain that the choice he has made is recognised and interpreted in ite true significance in England and on the Continent. For England, also, has preferred to let the decision of the question depend rather upon moral than diplomatic or legal considerations; and no doubt the carefully restrained and punctiliously courteous attitude that the Imperial authorities have maintained toward the United States in regard to the threatened abrogation of the HayPauncefote treaty has assisted President Wileon very materially in hie difficult task, and has 'helped to secure this unexpected and almost unique victory for moral principle in the field of "world politics."

But, naturally, it wae impossible for eueh a. question to be debated or decided without providing opportunities for those professional politicians -who are alwaye eager to snatch at any expedient th»t can be utilised' for purely partisan .purposes- We must remember thie in considering what ajnoont of weight aught to be attached to the exceedingly flamboyant oratory in which Mr Champ Clark and other "etalwaxte" have indulged in Cojigrera of late. On euch a congenial topic ac the arrogance of the "Britisher, ,, the American, "spellbinder" i« alw«a.ye sure of a hearing with audiences of a certain kind; for the daye of ~s praad- | eagle" rhetoric are iy no meana over in the U»ited Statee. Mr Clark must do something to support the Democratic .tradition, and though he indignantly repudiates the euggeetion thfct he ie opposing the repeal of tb: Canal Bill because be was ieaten in the Presidential election, no one can read -the cabhed reports of hie remarkaible ttfcterancee urithout feeling convinced' that he is posing for political purposes as the champion of the United States against the aggressive insolence of foreign Powers. To «ay that the repeal of the Canal 'Bill means the repudiation of the Monroe Doctrine is neither true to facts nor just to President .Wilson; but the (Monroe Doctrine is always a- strong card; in (Democratic hands. However, the TMnarkaJble speech juet delivered by Senator Lewis •cm the difficulties involved in -the maintenance of the Monroe Doctrine in Any extreme form, may serve as a useful corrective to 'Mr Champ Clarltfe extravagances, and may lieip to reconcile the people of America more, easily to the high-principled, dignified, and statesmanlike policy 4h«t the country has adopted under the guidance of President Wilson.