The Panama Problem.

New York Times 100 years ago today, July 17, 1912:
    Senator Root and Senator Burton emphasize the embarrassment which their colleagues are preparing for the United States by violating the National engagement that the conditions of traffic at Panama shall be equal for all. If we make them unequal in our own favor we shall certainly be summoned before the court of international justice at The Hague, and we have pledged ourselves to answer the summons. The judgment can only be that we shall cancel our action, which means more than it seems. It does not mean that we shall compel our ships to pay the tolls from which they have been exempted, but that we shall repay to foreign ships the accumulations of collections from them. Possibly even there will be a demand that the tolls be leveled downward to the level fixed for ourselves, not upward to the level fixed for our competitors. If this should go against us, we shall have made the canal free for the world while intending only to make it free for ourselves. The canal will therefore be a National burden for its upkeep, besides having swallowed a half billion of capital. Even the United States cannot throw money away like that. On the other hand, if our ships were made to contribute toward the cost of the canal on the same basis as other ships, the result would be that the Nation, in part at least, would be recouped for its expenditures.
    Senator Root made it clear why we cannot rid ourselves of the obstacle to enlarging the privilege of monopoly enjoyed by the coastwise marine, which now asks a cash contribution to its profits. We cannot abrogate the treaty because it is "executed," as lawyers say. That is, we have received the consideration and cannot repay it, or otherwise place the other party to the contract in the position it occupied before the bargain was made. In order to undo what was done under the obligation of the treaty, it would be necessary to restore to Panama the route which we "took," and to restore Panama to Colombia, and to tear down the works which have been a cause of justifiable pride to the Nation. And after this was done, if it is possible to conceive it, if we ever rebuilt the canal we should have to hold it by the power of the sword. It is the treaty which makes the canal neutral, that is, exempts it from hostile attack, and thereby exempts us from military expenses far exceeding the sum we shall waste if we give its use to our shipowners for nothing, allowing them to increase their profits without any engagement for their reducing the cost of doing business by lowering their rates.
    The proposal to collect tolls from our coastwise trade, but to repay it in the form of a subsidy, is a mere evasion. It is not dangerous, because it reveals its nature on its face, and this is not a subsidy year. The special objection to this particular subsidy is that it invites retaliation. Other nations could do the same thing, and Spain, it is said, has already arranged to do so. The result of subsidies all around would be merely doing business at an added cost at a time when the demand is for the reduction of costs. This Administration does not need to be told that trade cannot be promoted with a club. We enacted as part of the best and bravest tariff a provision that if any nation resented its outrageous proposals they should be made still more burdensome. We tried this plan, and found that Canada, France, and Germany could play it as well as ourselves. We perhaps saved our face in the negotiations with France and Germany, but were glad to substitute reciprocity for retaliation in the case of Canada.
    Reciprocity is the policy of our obligations under the canal treaty. We are receiving value for the disabilities under which we placed ourselves, and yet there are those who would have us expose ourselves to humiliation and certain defeat by proceeding in a manner contrary to National interests, even if our faith were not pledged against it. We doubt not that the British protest is courteous in tone, but it is a reproach to have caused it to be sent, to reject it would be to make the stain on our Honor ineffaceable. Senator Root has placed the whole matter in a clear light, and his advice should he heeded.