The Panama Canal

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 483, 17 July 1912, Page 5

The Panama Canal

New York. July 15. The objections made by the British Government against the provisions of the Panama Canal Bill are still occasioning considerable excitement in political circles. Mr D. C. Knox, Secretary of State, has outlined tho nature of the British objections. It is claimed that the exemption of American shipping from tolls is an infraction of tho Hay-Pauncefote treaty. The refunding of tolls', while complying with the letter would, it is urged, do a contravention of the spirit of the treaty. Great Britain admits that tho United States ia at liberty to subsidise her snipping, but there is, it is contended, a great distinction between a general subsidy and a subsidy calculated upon the use made of the canal by subsidised steumere. According to Great Britain it is impossible to frame regulations exempting bona fide coastwise trnhic. If this were done other American shipping wou'd benefit, thus entailing an infraction of the treaty. A canvass of the Senate reveals tho fact that a majority of the members favour freedom from tolls to American users of the canal. A considerable difference of opinion exists in Congress. Soma members characterise Great Britain's interference as meddlesome, whilst others declare that it its warranted.

The supporters of the Bill arc understood to claim the right of reimbursing shipping for lolls. The European Governments using the Suez Canal already, it is stated, pay eimilar subsidies. It is stated that Senntor Elihu Root, ex-Secretary of State, strongly opposes the exemption of coasting vessels, and that Senator Burton, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, considers that exemption would be contrary to the fcaty.

The consensus of newspaper opinion favours the British attitude. The New York World holds that the Oil! violates the Huy-Pauncefote treaty. The New York Times says: "The United States Becks to convert on enterprise of world-wide proportions into a selfish advantage by discrimination. Eng'and's intervention is in our own interests, more truly than in the interests of those for whom England speaks." The New York Herald says that incapacity and indecision marks the entire course of the Administrntiou and Congress in connection with the matter. The Tribune, on the other Viand says that it is difficult to sna in what respectß the Bill conflicts with the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. Washington, July 5.

It la unriernotod that Mr Knox, Secretary of State, does not regard the British protest against the Panama Canal as a matter for diplomatic treatment. Ho will merely acknowledge the protest and leave the matter in the hanas of Congress. London, July 15.

Reutcr'a Washington correspondent states that the Senate's vote making the Panama Canal Bill unfinished business is a refusal to grant Britain's request. Further consideration of the Bill has been deferred. The New York Times says this atep means retaliation, especially in Canada. Americans use the Canadian Canal to a greater extent than the Canadians use the American. Mr P. C. Knox, Secretary of State, in a letter to the Senate, outlined the nature of the British objectiond.