British Action Is Denied.

New York Times 100 years ago today, July 12, 1912:
But Question of Canal Tolls Is Being Considered by Government.
By Marconi Transatlantic Wireless Telegraph to The New York Times.
    LONDON, Friday, July 12.—A morning paper says:
    "There is absolutely no foundation for the report published in New York that the British Government has petitioned the Government of the United States to delay the passage of the Panama Canal bill. The question is still engaging the serious attention of the British Government.
    "The action of the United States Government in giving preferential treatment to American ships passing through the canal is contrary to the letter and spirit of Article III. of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, which says that 'the canal shall be free and open to vessels of commerce and war of all nations observing these rules on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination as against any such nation or its citizens or subjects in respect of conditions or charges of traffic or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic are to be just and equitable.'
    "It is held that these conditions are evaded by the proposal that the United States shall refund tolls on American ships by way of subsidy."

    LONDON. Friday, July 12,—The British Foreign Office has been in friendly communication for some time with the State Department at Washington in regard to the regulation of the Panama Canal.
    Great Britain's chief complaint is about the proposal to remit the dues on American steamers passing through the canal, which is considered here as an evasion of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty.
    There are other points, however, about which the British Foreign Office, through the embassy at Washington, has addressed the United States Government, and since the arrival here of the Canadian Premier, Mr. Borden, the question of the regulations in regard to steamers owned by railroads has been taken up. Canada has protested to the home Government on the ground that these regulations are inimical to her interests.
    The matter has been the subject of considerable agitation both in the press, and in Parliament, and the proposal in favor of American shipping has been condemned on the ground that it is an absolute throwing aside of a solemn treaty obligation. Cabinet Ministers, however, have avoided any comment on this subject likely to cause irritation.