Evening Post. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1913. THE PANAMA PROBLEM

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 34, 10 February 1913, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1913. THE PANAMA PROBLEM

— » — Dr. Woodrow Wilson hag talked with freedom on many subjects since his elec> tioti to the Pudency of the United States three months ago, but his vlbwb regarding the discrimination against foreign shipping, which was approved by Congress in the Panama Canal Act passed last year, have been carefully kept to himself. It was regarded as an ominous Bign that during the Presi» dential eamyaign not one of the three principal candidates had anything to say on the subject. Since then President Taft has broken the silence in order to say that Britain's request for a reference of the matter to arbitration should be granted. No other attitude Was to be expected oh the part of a man who had made the general reference of all disputes between the two countries to arbitration one of the capital objects" of his policy. But, urn fortunately, Mr. Taft will go out of office next month. So far as we have observed, Mr. Roo&Velt has not dealt with the question since the election, but as he had previously expressed the opinion that the United States are bound by the HayPauncefote Treaty to open the Panama Canal on equal terms to the ships of all nations, "including our own," it is not to be supposed that he can object to Sir Edward Grey's request fop arbitration. It is, however, the views of Dr, Wilson that matter 1 most, and these ate being artistically held back. There is certainly no reason why he should hasten to unbosom himself to the man in the street, even if his wind is definitely made up. A message to Congress, or the inaugural address that he will deliver on his assumption of office in about three weeks' time, will provide a much more suitable 1 opjw* tunity for a declaration of policy on this important matter than a newspaper interview or ah after-dinner speech. It would be, indeed, an" auspicious opening for his term of office If the new President could make a statement at the inaugural ceremony that would put the matter right. , Materially the United States may not' have a* very large in« terest at stake, especially as ©he of their experts has pronounced against disdrimination '<itn the grounds of domestic policy alone. But the point of honour that is involved makes the isstfe really of graver import for the American than for the British people. Dealing two months ago with Sir Ed' ward Grey's despatch which had been published a few day before, The Times expressed the fear that certain American press comments displayed "an inability or an unwillingness on the part of those who make them to appreciate the Bri» tish attitude on the Qarial question." The studied courtesy and moderation of the Foreign Minister's language had* The Times feared, been treated as mean, ing that the protest had not been made* in earnest and would not be pressed. The Washington correspondent of The Times hastened to correct this impression with the r.ssurance that (here wes no tendency in tny responsible quarter to regard Sir Edward Grey'a despatch as penned in any but the 1 most Eerious spirit, and that with a few notorious exceptions the whole press at any rate in the System States, agreed with Mr. Chote, who had recently indulged in an impassioned denunciation of those who opposed the request for arbitration. There is, indeed, no lack of eminent American authority in favour of doing the right thing. Mr. Elihu Root, whb was Mr. Roose'velt's Secretary of State and is regarded c.s one of the first constitutional lawyers in the United States, is fully satisfied that the Panama Canal Act is a Violation ttf the Hay-Pauncefotfe Treaty, and urges that the country "is not free to discriminate in its own fay» our, and must have a decent regard for the opinions of mankind." Mr. Taft does not go as far &a this ; he has argued strongly that the Act does not infringe the treaty. The point is one which it should not take a judicial tribunal long to decide, for it is a narrow question of verbal construction. - "The Canal," says the treaty, "shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these rules, on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such natioh or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges against any such hation or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic or otherwise." This is the mudi-controverted clause, and the entire controversy turns upon whether or not "all nations" includes the United States or merely mean* "all nations other than the United States. The point must be presumed to be not so simple as it looks, since the whole case for ' the Panama Canal Act rests upon the second of these interpretations. But the immediate point is a much simpler one than this. Is the matter to be' referred to arbitration, as desired by Great Britain and recommended by President Taft, or is it not? A negative answer would strike a grievous blow at the honour bf the United States and the hopes of international arbitration, but that does not mean that a majority of the Senate Mil not be prepared to give it. Saturday's* cable message that much depends on Dr. Woodrow Wilson's attitude, and our knowledge that he is both a jurist and a man of high pfin> oiple A Uavo the door, pi hope still ojpeo..