THE IKRIGATION AGE. 



327 



in the right direction, but it is not going far enough. 

 There is no reason why the forest reserves should not 

 entirely be turned back to the various states to be taken 

 care of and administered according to wise and proper 

 laws, which Congress or the various legislatures should 

 pass from time to time. 



An unfortunate dispute between the United 

 Canal Rights States and Great Britain over Panama canal 

 In Dispute rights has arisen in connection with the bill 

 With England now before Congress. The discussion places 

 this country in a bad light, for it looks as 

 if a dishonorable effort were being made by our public 

 men to ignore the treaties by which the ships of other 

 nations were guaranteed the same privileges as those to 

 be enjoyed by American vessels. 



The United States government will have to stick to 

 its agreement, notwithstanding a bad bargain was made. 

 It would be desirable, and in a sense fair, to give ad- 

 vantages to American shipping, in view of the expense 

 borne by this country, but it is too late now to make such 

 a contention. In the Hay-Pauncefote treaty it was agreed 

 that there should be no discrimination. Such an agree- 

 ment seemed to be necessary at the time it was made 

 to gain the consent of other powers to the political and 

 commercial undertakings of the United States in con- 

 nection with the canal. 



We do not believe that the general trade of this 

 country will be injured by granting equal privileges to all 

 ships using the canal, but if there were any such fear the 

 only honorable way to meet the case would be to revise 

 the treaties which are now in force. 



Great Britain's protest that the United States has no 

 right under the Hay-Pauncefote treaty to pass its own 

 coastwise vessels free through the Panama canal, while 

 it collects tolls from British and other foreign ships found 

 emphatic support in the Senate recently. 



Opening the fight over the Panama canal bill sent to 

 the Senate by the House, in which the free provision is an 

 important feature, Senators Burton of Ohi.o and Root of 

 New York outlined the ground upon which the enemies 

 of free American ships will fight their battle. 



Both senators declare Great Britain had surrendered 

 important rights at Panama, held under the former Clay- 

 ton-Bulwer treaty, for the pledge of "equal treatment" 

 to all ships, given by the United States in the existing 

 Hay-Pauncefote treaty. The controversy hinges on the 

 question of whether the United States, in its pledge to 

 treat the ships of "all nations" equally, meant to include 

 vessels owned by its own citizens. 



Senator Root, former Secretary of State, unreservedly 

 declared that The Hague court would be called upon to 

 . settle the issue finally if the United States passed the 

 bill with the free provision, which he characterized as 

 "unjustifiable discrimination" against other nations. A de- 

 cision against the United States by The Hague court, he 

 said, would undoubtedly involve this country in the re- 

 payment of millions of dollars to the owners of foreign 

 ships which might have been taken as tolls at the canal. 



To permit our own vessels to use the canal fre'e of 

 charge and collect tolls from those of all other nations 

 for a similar privilege is, of course, discriminative. And 

 that we may do so unchallenged depends upon the con- 

 struction which will be given two treaties governing this 

 issue directly, one made in 1850, the other in 1901. The 

 former is the Clayton-Bulwer treaty entered into with 

 Great Britain. One section of that instrument bears 

 directly on this issue and reads: 



"It is always understood by the United States and 

 Great Britain that the parties constructing or owning the 

 same (the canal) shall impose no other charges or con- 

 ditions of traffic thereupon than the aforesaid govern- 

 ments shall approve of as just and equitable; and that the 

 same canals or railways, being open to the citizens and 

 subjects of the United States and Great Britain on equal 

 terms, shall also be open on like terms to the citizens 

 and subjects of every other state which is willing to 

 grant thereto such protection as the United States and 

 Great Britain engage to afford." 



The second treaty referred to, entered into in 1901, 

 extended the Clayton-Bulwer provisions, as follows: 



"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 equality, so that there shall be no dis- 

 crimination against any such nation, or its citizens or 

 subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic, 

 or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic shall 

 be just and equitable." 



From these existing treaties, seemingly, there is an 

 obligation upon us to deal with the vessels of other 

 countries precisely as we shall deal with our own; to exact 

 the same toll from both domestic and foreign vessels 

 using the canal, or admit all free. It is true we may 

 abrogate the treaties, and Great Britain's note will doubt- 

 less lead to a discussion which will give voice to such a 

 suggestion; but, for all that, we can scarcely assume that 

 position. We knew full well what these treaties were 

 intended to express and make plain, and, certainly, there 

 is little room to question the inference that their primary 

 project was to prevent discrimination. 



There is a distinct improvement in the 

 Improvement financial as P ect of irrigation. This is 

 In Financial chiefly due to growing confidence among 

 Aspect of capitalists and bankers. Many leading 

 Irrigation financiers are on record as predicting better 

 times, particularly in the West. 



Naturally a renewal of confidence with respect to 

 western development will improve the prospects of all 

 irrigation enterprises. It is not enough, however, that this 

 improvement should be general. It ought to be direct and 

 specific in the matter of irrigation projects. 



For a long time capitalists have been discriminating 

 against western enterprises, and irrigation has been re- 

 tarded through prejudice. Financial aid has been denied 

 many of the safest and best projects because of the un- 

 reasonable belief in the minds of Chicago and New York 

 bankers that a large proportion of these development 

 enterprises were impracticable or dishonest. This mis- 

 information has been hard to fight, although western men, 

 as a rule, know how badly founded the views or eastern 

 bankers are with respect to the vast majority of irrigation 

 projects. 



In a sense financial men are forced into a new and 

 friendly attitude. Time has shown that the irrigated sec- 

 tions of the West are the only localities that are capable 

 of greatly increasing agricultural production. The needed 

 inrease in fruit, fodder, grain, etc., is found in the West 

 and more especially in the irrigated regions. Further- 

 more, the possibilities of the irrigated lands have not 

 been fully reached. The demonstration is sufficient to 

 show what can be done, but the volume of production will 

 continue to swell for many years to come, through the 

 agency of irrigation. 



The gains in agriculture, which the West shows, and 



