The Canadian, Panama, and Suez Canals.

New York Times 100 years ago today, July 16, 1912:
    The Canadian, Panama, and Suez Canals stand so far apart from all other facilities of international commerce that they alone are operated under agreements couched in similar language, which have been construed by years of usage. The Canadian and Panama Canals are Government owned, and the Suez Canal is Government operated through England's ownership of a block of stock sufficient to give it control, despite the franchise limitations on shares owned in large blocks. The language governing the operation of all these canals is as follows:

HAY-PAUNCEFOTE TREATY, 1901.
    Article 3.— The United States adopts as the basis of the neutralization of such ship canal the following rules, substantially as embodied in the Convention of Constantinople, signed the 28th October, 1888, for the free navigation of the Suez Canal, that is to say: 1. 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 discrimination against any such nation, or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic or otherwise.

WATERWAYS TREATY OF 1909.
    Article 1—* * * It is further agreed that so long as this treaty shall remain in force, this same right of navigation shall extend to the waters of Lake Michigan, and to all canals connecting boundary waters, and now existing, or which may hereafter be constructed on either side of the line. Either of the high contracting parties may adopt rules and regulations governing the use of such canals within its own territory, and may charge tolls for the use thereof, but all such rules and regulations and all tolls charged shall apply alike to the subjects or citizens of the high contracting parties, and the ships, vessels and boats of the high contacting parties, and they shall be placed on terms of equality in the use thereof.

    Both engagements, controlling the use of all three canals, use the word "equality" in forbidding discrimination in conditions or tolls. The engagement regarding the Suez Canal is in our interest so far as it forbids England as the chief and operating owner to discriminate against the United States marine. The corresponding engagement regarding Panama is similarly in England's interest, and is the basis of her present protest against the proposal to authorize discrimination in favor of our ships through the canal built through our own territory and with our own money. Those who support the proposal assert the light of reason against the words which forbid us to do as we will with what is so peculiarly our own as the Panama Canal. They have obvious and sufficient reasons for so arguing. But the Senate's position is different in two respects. Its concern must be for the interests of the public rather than for the interests of those seeking to swell their profits with the earnings of the people's property, and its position has already been taken against the policy of discrimination. When the treaty 1901 was pending Senator McLaurin moved to strike out the above-quoted provision that the tolls on the Panama Canal should be equal and non-discriminatory substantially according to the rules governing the Suez Canal. The motion was rejected by a vote which was not released from the injunction of secrecy when the treaty was ratified. (Congressional Record, Volume 35, Page 318.)
    Undoubtedly Congress has a right to do as it wills, subject to the consequences of its acts. Congress can enact discrimination in the use of the Panama Canal, and the treaty which forbids it is superseded by the later statute. But to what purpose? The word "equal" must have the same meaning in the case of all three canals, and the cost of discriminating in our favor regarding Panama presumably will be discrimination against us over the Canadian and Suez routes. The price is excessive, on merely intrinsic considerations, and it includes dishonor. The Senate stultifies itself, as well as discredits the Nation, if it reverses its own decision for reasons purely sordid, and without justification in public interest. The earnings of the people's property which it is proposed to pass
into private pockets through the Treasury should not be paid away in that manner without security for public benefit.
    The object of the canal is to facilitate, commerce throughout the world, and especially the United States, by cheapening communications. It is somewhat as though it were proposed to cheapen the cost of living by reducing the costs of distribution to the middlemen. But the exemption of the middlemen, or carriers, from tolls will be added to their profits, unless security is taken, and none is proposed. The canal fails in its motive if it is diverted to increasing carriers' profits by reducing their burdens, instead of to reducing costs to consumers. In a manner of speaking the carriers are the errand boys of the Nation's universal providers. Their profits are believed to be sufficient, being on a monopoly basis. The proposal that the Nation shall tip the errand boys is no satisfactory substitute for the cheapening of the goods in the errand boys' baskets. The way to reduce the cost of living is to reduce the cost of doing business, and not to increase monopoly profits.