British Criticisms Unfair, Says Taft.

New York Times 100 years ago today, September 27, 1912:
Wrong to Charge Dishonor in His Canal Policy, He Tells London Times Man.
NEWSPAPER MAKES RETORT
Likewise Wrong, It Declares, to Impeach British Honor Just Before His Policy Is Questioned.
Special Cable to The New York Times.
    LONDON, Friday, Sept. 27.— The Times publishes the following message, cabled from Beverly, Mass., by an occasional correspondent, who asked President Taft to make a statement regarding his Panama Canal policy for communication to the Times:
    "All that I can properly say for The Times is that it seems to me a very unfair argument to charge a man with being in favor of dishonoring the treaty obligations of his Government, when he asserts that his Government had never entered into such treaty obligations. It is not competent to charge dishonor before it has been established that we have violated the treaty. "I gave notice that I held to this construction of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty in my message to Congress one year ago, and no suggestion that my construction of the treaty was at fault was made until the canal bill had almost reached its final passage."
    The Times, commenting editorially on this statement, says the obvious effect of such language as this is to suggest that The Times brought charges of dishonorable conduct against President Taft. It maintains that although The Times had written a good deal about Mr. Taft's Panama policy, it never lowered the plane of argument by introducing any question of personal character or motive.
    The article proceeds to reiterate in brief what it said in supporting the British case and "ventures to say" that no allusion to honor or dishonor will be found in any Times comments on the Taft Panama policy.
    "It is a somewhat disconcerting thing," adds The Times, "that a statesman of great experience alike in public affairs and the law courts of his country should hold that such statements to the British case involve such aspersions upon his honor as suffice to put those, who make them, out of court.
    "Mr. Taft justifies his policy by his interpretation of the treaty but it is precisely that interpretation, which we call in question. If in maintaining that he is wrong, we impeach President Taft's honor, then in maintaining that we are wrong, he impeaches our honor and that of the British Government, which has protested against his interpretation.
    "Such arguments or imputations seem to us merely to create prejudice on both sides and that is surely out of place in any persons who respect each other and themselves."
    The article concludes:
    "If differences of interpretation cannot be settled by diplomacy, reference must be to that international arbitration, of which the President himself has been so eloquent an advocate. The honor of both parties can only gain from such a course."