THE H.B. TRIBUNE. WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1912. PANAMA CANAL.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 182, 17 July 1912, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 1912. PANAMA CANAL.

The controversy which is at present proceeding in the United States with j reference to the' equality 'of shipping' in the Panama Canal is of considerable interest to this part of the world. The near future promises to make the canal a traffic route of the deepest importance to Australia and Now Zealand, and the initiation of any scheme of differentiation might lead eventually to our disadvantage. The Commonwealth Government has entered a timely protest, and it is to be hoped New Zealand will add its quota to the objections raised. It is vitally necessary in this matter, however, that no dictatorial methods be adopted. It must be remembered that America has bought and paid for the canal with, her own money and should therefores be entitled to a dominating voice in the matter of control. No good can come of provoking a rupture with the States, and this fact should be kept steadily in mind while the question is under discussion. The main point at issue is plainly whether or not America intends to keep to the spirit of the Hay-Panncefote Treaty of 1901. The treaty rights then agreed to. seemed to make the position plain enough to avoid disagreement, bpt a big influential section of the Americans is attempting to drive the proverbial coach and horses through the section of th? Treaty devoted to this question. The clause provides - ‘the canal shall be open to vessels of commerce and war of all nations on terms of entire equality.” There should not be any difficulty in seeing that this is a direct and definite ' statement against anything like differentiation. The Americans, however, wish to establish control upon business lines—-they want a profit on their eighty millions—and begin to see that the canal is going to "materially help their commercial rivals. President T.aft has openly expressed his desire to break away from the Treat v obligations. "We own the canal." said Mr. Taft. "It was our money that, built it. Me have the right to charge tolls for its use. Those tolls must be the same to cvcrvone ; but when we are deal- : ng 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.” Naturally such a statement has aroused a chorus of objections from the British Press, which has not

been altogether without weight. It' is gratify ing, also, to note that some 0 ; the leading American journals have taken a wider view of the situation Mr. Taft’s interpretation of the equality clause is, of course, nothing more than a legal quibble, but it will be a difficult one to argue against if America stands firm with the President. There is nothing which entitles outside nations to interfere with a Government paying shipping subsidies, anil American shipping and commercial men no doubt reh’ upon this fact to hold an advantage over rivals in canal traffic. Nevertheless it is in distinct conflict with the spirit of the Treaty and is unworthy of the high office which Mr. Taft holds. The British

"Outlook” deals vehemently with the suggested evasion : “It is obvious that, if this barefaced robbery is to be used against British vessels of commerce, the question may 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 out of profitable competition—which is the same thing—by 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 States competition.” This is picturesque and forcible language, but it can do no good at this stage to awaken American antagonism to walk hand in hand with Ameican cupidity. The matter can be handled without acrimony and abuse. All America is not behind the Taft quibble. Secretary Stemosn has declared against the proposal as unwise and unnecessary, and Mr. Root, who is a tower of strength, is upon the side of diplomatic rectitude. That Mr. Hay’s successor in office should take this stand is one of the strongest for an honest interpretation of the Treaty provisions. Mr. Root will lead the fight in Congress for observance of the equality clause and there is every reason to hope that if tact is used the better judgment of the American statesmen will prevail. Once a pernicious system of preference is permitted in canal fees endless trouble and friction might arise. * •