Untitled

Gisborne Times, Volume XXX, Issue 3614, 29 August 1912, Page 4

It is certain, we should say, that Britain will contest A Clear Breach the right of the of Faith. United States to grant free tolls to American coastwise shipping an connection with the Panama Canal. The matter is, of course, one of considerable importance as the proposed discrimination in regard to charges in favor of the United States must detrimentally affect Home trade with Canada and also with Australia and New Zealand. Mr Taft,- will have been noted, is endeavoring to show that what the United States is doing is quite within her jurisdiction, but it would seem that it is in contravention, not only of the spirit, but also of the very letter of existing treaty rights. If one cares to look up the ClaytonBulwer treaty, which was adopted in 18-50, but has since been superseded by the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1901, one will find that it was plainly the intention all along that no country should obtain any special concessions with reference to the use of the great water-way that is nearing completion. Hero is, for instance, what may be described as the cardinal' clause in the original treaty. “Nor will Great Britain or the United States’’ it reads, “take advantage of any intimacy or use any alliance connection or .influence that cither may possess with any State or Government through whose territory the Canal may pass for the purpose of acquiring or holding directly or indirectly for the subjects or citizens of the one any rights or advantages in regard to commerce or navigation through the Canal which shall not be offered on the same terms to the subjects or citizens of the other.” It was further provided, inter alia, that the protection of the Canal and guarantee of its neutrality might be withdrawn if unfair discrimination were made in favor of the commerce of one of the contracting parties over the commerce of the other, or if excessive tolls were imposed.- What was, however, the most interesting clause in the treaty was that in which it was provided that the two Governments —Britain and the United States- —having not only desired “in entering into this convention to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish a general principle” should extend this protection by treaty stipulations to other schemes of communication bv canal or railway across the Isthmus provided that the charges imposed should be j “just and equitable” and should bo | “open to the subjects and citizens of j Groat Britain and tlie United States ' on 'equal terms” and to the subjects of all other States affording the same protection. As to what wins the intention of the Claytou-Bulwer treaty in the matter there is then clearly no room for doubt. But, before proceed- , ing to show that the same principle j was adopted in connection with the j

A Clear Breach of Faith.

Hay-Pauncefote treaty it is of considerable interest to refer to the Suez Canal treaty which was adopted in 1888. <After protracted negotiations it may be remembered a convention was signed between Great Britain and Franco which was afterwards signed by Germany, Austria, Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Russia and Turkey, to socure tho neutralisation of the Suez Canal, which should “always be free and open in time of war as in tinqe of peace to every vessel of commerce or of war without any distinction of flag.” Now' the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, which, as we have said, superseded the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, provides that the contracting parties desiring to preserve and maintain the general principle of neutrality established in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty agree in effect that the Canal shall be open to the vessels of all nations “on terms of entire equality” and so that “there shall be ’no discrimination against any nation in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic.” Politically, it' may have suited Mr Taft's j book to have signed the B U under i consideration; but as one of the Home j journals says his action will remain “a ■ blot on the Republic’s reputation.” As ! New Zealand Is interested in the mat- j ter wo trust that the Government will ' join in urging the Motherland to take further steps with a view to having 5 the Empire’s rights in connection with j the Canal' fully recognised. :