British Canal Note May Be Withheld.

New York Times 100 years ago today, July 26, 1912:
Senate Debate So Favorable to London's Contention That Presentation Would Be Useless.
BILL'S DEFENDERS ROUSED
Several Will Speak for Discrimination Plan Next Week, and Postponement Is Declared Unlikely.
Special to The New York Times.
    WASHINGTON, July 25.— Consideration in the Senate of the Panama Canal tolls and the obligation of the United States under the Hay-Pauncefote treaty has followed a course so favorable to the contention of Great Britain that the State department is of the opinion that the argumentative note, setting forth the British position in detail, may not be presented at all unless the Senate actually declares for free passage for American ships.
    Secretary Knox expected that A. Mitchell Innes. British Charge' d'Affaires, would confer with him to-day, probably bringing the text of the note, but the conference did not lake place and may not for some time. This is the more significant because a week ago, when sentiment in the Senate was apparently in favor of ignoring the treaty and granting favors to American shipping, Mr. Innes left the Summer embassy in Maine and returned to Washington for the purpose of presenting the note. No official explanation has been made of the failure of the note to arrive.
    Meanwhile three strong speeches have been made against discriminating in favor of American ships. The first was by Senator Root, and he was followed by Senator McCumber of North Dakota and Senator Percy of Mississippi. The efforts of Senator Lodge of Massachusetts and Senator O'Gorman on the other side have not been convincing. To-day the fate of the toll section of the bill in uncertain.
    The State Department is anxious to have the matter treated as a question between the Senate and the British Foreign Office and to be left with free hands and a clean record to defend diplomatically any position which this country may take. There is reason to believe that many department officials incline to the British contention, but naturally they cannot commit themselves to such an attitude when there is a possibility that they might later have to take a different position in defense of the National convention at The Hague.
    The strong speeches which have been made against discrimination in favor of American ships and the charges that this would be a violation of treaty obligations have spurred the other side to an active defense. The bill will probably be taken up again on Monday and several speeches favoring American shipping will be made.
    Senators Bristow, Cummins, and Bradley, Republicans, will all speak during the week and Senator Chamberlain, Democrat, of Oregon, will probably do likewise. The Republicans are all interested in the development of traffic down the Mississippi to New Orleans for transshipment in American bottoms through the canal to the Pacific Coast.  Mr. Chamberlain's Interest lies in favors to Pacific shipping which will come east through the waterway.
    There was some talk again to-day of the whole bill going over until the Winter, but that is improbable. As Chairman Brandegee of the committee in charge expressed it to-day, the only chance for such delay lies in the fixing of a day for adjournment, after which any measure could be delayed by a determined filibuster.