PANAMA CANAL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 49, 16 July 1912, Page 5

PANAMA CANAL.

PROBABLE RETALIATION. By Cable—Press Association—Copyright. Washington, July 14. The Senate's vote making the Panama Bill unfinished business is a refusal of Britain's request that further consideration should be deferred. The New York Times considers that this step means retaliation,, especially by Canada. Americans use Canadian canals to a greater extent than Canadians uso American. ABSOLUTE EQUALITY. THE HAY-PAUNCEFOTE TREATY. Received 15, 10.10 p.m. London, July 15. The Times' Washington correspondent says that the debate on the Panama Bill may start at any time, when Mr. Elihu Root will fight for absolute equality. Much depends on the interpretation of the spirit of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, with a view to determining how far it perpetuates the sense of the Clayton Bulwer Convention. The fact of Mr. Hay's successor in the State Department being on Britain's side is of great significance. On the other hand the opposition is active and ingenious. Meanwhile there is growing talk of arbitration.

AMERICA'S OBLIGATIONS. j TREATY PROVISIONS IGNORED. The objections of Great Britain to the Panama Canal Bill probably arise from the insertion of a provision by the House of Representatives exempting Americanowned vessels from liability to paying tolls for the use of the canal. A message received last month stated that the Senate Committee had retained this' provision. The London Times; in writing on the subject recently, said: — In the newspaper discussion of the question of tolls on the Panama Canal there seems to be a general tendency to ignore, if not an actual ignorance of, the contract the United States has entered into on this siujeet. The Hay-Paunce-fote Treaty (November 18, 1001), Section 1, Article 3, says: "The canal shall be free and open to , the vessels of commerce and of war ) of all nations observing these rules I (rules for neutrality) on terms of j entire equality, so that there shall be j no discrimination against any such ■ nation, or its citizens or subjects, in v respect to the conditions or charges of ) traffic, or otherwise. Such conditions j and charges of traffic shall bo just and J

equitable." In the face of this pledge of equality for the ships of all nations a means of discriminating in favor of American ships is being sought, and one of these means is the clumsy expedient of refunding tolls to American vessels. While Great Britain may be inclined to hold aloof on the question of fortification of the canal (taking the position that the United States may resort to any measures it seems fit for preserving neutrality), it is not likely that so open a breach of faith as the refund of tolls would be passed unnoticed. Great Britain has a large stake in the Panama trade. Of ten lines of ships in the regular trade on the Atlantic side of the Isthmus, live are under the British flag. Of the seven lines making regular calls at Panama on the Pacific side, two are British.

Although Great Britain and the United States are the only actual parties to the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, that contract in effect established a general principle for the internationalisation of the Panama Canal, which other nations have a right to expect will be adhered to. Germany already has two lines in the Panama trade.' France. Italy and Spain have regular lines in the Colon trade, and Chili and Peru in the west coast trade. Much of this traffic was established before the United States began the construction of the Canal; and established conditions may not be ignored in contracts such as that between the United States and Great Britain, especially where other nations have a tangible interest. The llay-Pauncefote Treaty did not intend to ignore these nations, but was intended as a promise on the part of the United States that "the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these rules, on terms of entire neutrality."