Canal Bill Signing Incenses England.

New York Times 100 years ago today, August 26, 1912:
London Newspapers Sharply Impugn Our Good Faith and Call for Arbitration.
PROMPT ACTION IS LIKELY
Another Protest to Washington and Then a Demand for Reference to The Hague Is the Programme.
Special Cable to The New York Times.
    LONDON, Aug. 25.— The signing of the Panama Canal bill by President Taft was the signal for editorial comment in most of the principal London newspapers.
    The Times says:
    "We understand and make full allowance for the exceptional conditions which dominate American politics in a Presidential year, but considerations of that kind, it need hardly be said, cannot be allowed to affect our attitude on a subject of this deep consequence to the interests of our trade and the trade of the whole empire.
    "Should the text of the law bear out upon examination the view that it does in fact gravely violate our clear rights in the matter of first-rate importance, we shall, of course, renew the representations to the Government at Washington, and should these unhappily fail to bring about a satisfactory settlement, we shall appeal to the arbitration treaty of 1908 and request that the whole controversy and the proper construction, scope, and bearing of the canal treaty be referred to The Hague for decision.
    "Suggestions have been freely made in certain quarters that the United States is not likely to entertain a request of that kind. That, as we have said before, is a blow to the whole principle of arbitration which we absolutely refuse to contemplate, unless and until it is delivered.
    "No Government or nation has more loudly preached resort to arbitration than the Government and people of the United States. It is hardly credible, after so preaching it to others, they should cynically decline to adopt it where it concerns themselves.
    "A refusal of this kind would inevitably create a certain indisposition on the part of all self-respecting nations to enter into contractual arrangements with a State which reserved to itself the exclusive right of interpreting the measure of its own obligations."
    Under the caption of "President Taft's Failure," The Daily Mail says:
    "If President Taft had done nothing more than attach his signature to the Panama Canal bill, it might have been possible to find some excuse for his action. At any rate, he might have pleaded the urgency of legislation in order to put the canal in a state of defense.
    "But he has not been content with signing the bill. He has not scrupled to give it his benediction in a memorandum, which might have been written by a pettifogging solicitor instead of by the chief of a great republic.
    "The memorandum contains not a single reference to an appeal, either to arbitration or to the law courts. President Taft accepts defeat on that issue, though it is certain to be raised by Great Britain, and possibly by other Countries.
    "It is a little more than twelve months since President Taft moved the whole world to admiration by proposing an arbitration treaty for the settlement of all disputes, even those involving questions of national honor. What is the world to think of this proposal now?
    "President Taft's memorandum on the Panama Canal bill must be the despair of all who seek the millennium in arbitration and delight those who prophesied the failure of his great scheme for the regeneration of mankind."
    In an editorial headed "Dishonored," The Daily Express says:
    "In spite of the unanimous protest of the responsible American press, President Taft has signed the Panama Canal bill. That protest has been a splendid vindication of the honor of the American people. The signature will remain a blot on the Republic's reputation.
    "It is lamentable that President Taft has not been strong enough to resist the politicians and to act in accord with the call of the National conscience.
    "In times when there is continual prating on the highway of the end of war, international friendship and arbitration, the United States has given the world a new and barefaced reminder of the value of treaties."