TOPICS OF THE MONTH. 



make for the use of our waterway. In 

 short, there was no need of any treaty 

 at all, and none should have been rati- 

 fied. Our Government had precisely the 

 same right to create the Isthmian canal 

 that it now has to construct one across 



]3ort of public opinion, that Congress 

 should at once repeal that clause of the 

 law which remits tolls in favour of a 

 certain part of the tonnage passing 

 through the canal. This would satisfy 

 the British contention for the moment, 



Florida or to complete the ditch across and terminate a diplomatic controvers}-. 



It would not, however, provide a per- 

 manent settlement unless England 

 should passively admit that, in the ver}' 

 nature of the case, the United States 

 must be expected to use the canal with- 

 out restriction where nothing is involved 

 except questions that are strictly those 

 of domestic policy. If Canada and 

 Mexico wish to consider the canal as a 

 domestic waterway- for the purpose of 

 their own ships engaged in trade between 

 their Atlantic and their Pacific seaports, 

 the)' are at libertv to pa)- the canal tolls 

 as a subsid)', if the)- so desire ; and they 

 will thus be doing in effect the same 

 things that our Government does when 

 it proposes to remit the tolls of our own 

 ships. For to remit these tolls has the 

 same effect as if we collected them at 

 one end of the canal, through an official 

 toll-keeper, and paid them back at the 

 other end of the canal through a trea- 

 sury agent dispensing a subsid)-. The 

 American people consider themselves 

 permanently committed to treat all 

 foreign ships alike in the use of the 

 canal — not because of an)- treat)-, but 

 because of our imperial attitude toward 

 all maritime nations. But it has not 

 been the intention of the American 

 people that any question should be 

 raised as to our full sovereignt)' over 

 the canal. That part of the Hay- 

 Pauncefote treat)- relating to canal tolls 

 was not a bargain, but an expression of 

 our intentions. It had no proper place 

 in a treaty ; but we must not take the 

 position of treating lightl)- an)-thing 

 that has been cast in the treat)- form. 



That is a clear and lucid statement of 

 the American case. Whether an Im- 

 ])artial Arbitration Court would agree to 

 put aside the sti]-)ulation of a treat)' pro- 

 perly ratified as it was b)' the people's 

 representatives in the Senate, on the 

 ground that certain clauses therein were 

 not binding, but merely expressed a sort 

 or benevolent intention, is another matter 



Cape Cod. Nevertheless, we actually 

 ratified the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, and 

 thus gratuitouslv and absurdlv limited 

 our rights as respects our own canal. 

 There was no quid pro quo of any sort ; 

 so that we are not under obligation to 

 England in this matter. But we are 

 under ever)- sort of obligation to our- 

 sehes. We must act with frankness and 

 honour. No improj^er treat)- can stand, 

 if one of the parties to it gives open 

 and fair notice of its desire and inten- 

 tion to withdraw. But Congress ought 

 not to enact a law that violates a treaty 

 without first declaring its purpose either 

 to denounce the treat)- or to secure its 

 abrogation. 



.\ PURELY DOilESTIC PROBLEM. 



The coastwise traffic of the United 

 States is b)- law restricted to American 

 vessels. Whether or not such vessels 

 ]:)ay tolls in going through the Panama 

 Canal must always be a purely domestic 

 question for the United States to settle 

 without European interference. The 

 people of the United States would not 

 intentional!)- have made a treaty that 

 could have allowed England to make 

 an attack upon a detail of one of our 

 domestic policies. If our law does not 

 agree with the treaty, we are under ob- 

 ligation to ourselves, from the stand- 

 point of frankness and honour, either 

 to change the law or to 

 treat)' 



although we must not remit the tolls of 

 our coastwise vessels, we are at liberty 

 to pay an equivalent amount in the form 

 of a subsid)-. Since this is obviously 

 true, as resj^ects our vessels engaged in 

 foreign trade as well as those in the 

 coasting business, it is somewhat diffi- 

 cult to understand why England should 

 deem it desirable to take up the question 

 at all. 

 CHANGES IN THE LAW ARE PROPOSED. 

 It is now- strongly urged by influen- 



change the 



The British argument is that. 



tial men at Washington, with much sup- altogether. 



