PANAMA CANAL.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 85, 27 August 1912, Page 5

PANAMA CANAL.

THE BILL SIGNED

By Cable. —Press Association. —Copyright Washington, August 26. Mr. Taft has signed the Panama Canal Bill. The President made a statement, in which he says that the British Treaty restricts the United States in using its own canal and aiding its own commerce in the way every other nation is free to do. The United States lias absolute rights of ownership, and the sole question at issue is: Has the United States, by the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, deprived itself of the right to pass its own commerce free or remit the tolls collected for the use of the canal? He points out that the rules specified by the treaty were adopted by the United States as a basis for the neutralisation of the canal, and for no ether purpose. The rules were never intended to restrict the United States in its sovereign powers over the canal.

Mr. Taft adds that the British protest leads to the absurd conclusion that the Government, after constructing the canal, maintaining the canal And defending the canal, finds itself shorn of the right to deal with its commerce in its own way, while other nations using the canal in competition with American commerce enjoy that right and power unimpaired. Mr. Taft contests the argument that the Bill will affect the American shipbuilding interests adversely. After notification had been received of the signing of the Bill, Mr. Simms, in the House of Representatives, introduced a Bill repealing the provision for free tolls for American coastwise shipping. He explained that the Bill had the endorsement of a majority of the Interstate Commerce Commission. It was intended to avert international complications. The measure goes over to the December session.

PRESS COMMENT. THE TIMES SPEAKS OUT. Received 27, 12.55 a.m. London, August 26

The Times, commenting on the Panama Canal Bill, as signed, and President Taft's message and memorandum, recommending further action, considers the measure incompatible with the plain meaning of the Hay-Pauneefote Treaty. It creates a privilege, and 'however exceptional the conditions dominating politics may be in a Presidential year we cannot lose sight of the injury' clone to the trade of the whole Empire. Britain, if necessary, will renew representations to Washington, and, failing redress, will request a reference of the whole controversy to the Hague Tribunal. The Daily Mail says that President Taft "has not scrupled to give the Bill his benediction. The memorandum might have been written by a pettifogging solicitor, instead of by the chief of a great Republic. The Post regrets President Taft's attempt to justify a breach of faith. The Bill violates treaty right and seriously injures our trade with Canada and Australia. If it is so transparently plain that the Bill squared with the Hay-Paunce-fote Treaty, surely it is a waste" of words to expatiate upon its offensiveness from the foreigners' standpoint. The Express states that the American protest splendidly vindicates the honor of the American people. The signature to the Bill will remain a blot on the Republic's reputation.