Canal Bill Vote May End Treaties.

New York Times 100 years ago today, August 16, 1912:
Feared Britain Won't Renew Hay-Pauncefote Convention, Which Expires Next April.
EXAMPLE FOR OTHER NATIONS
No Further Protest Expected from England — Bill to be Pushed In Both Houses To-day.
Special to The New York Times.
    WASHINGTON, Aug. 15.— Prominent Senators this afternoon were seriously alarmed to discover that our twenty-five arbitration treaties with nearly every civilized country in the world are seriously imperiled by our course on the Panama Canal bill. To their surprise they discovered this afternoon that our arbitration treaty with Great Britain, which figured so prominently in the Senate debates on the no-toll Question, will expire by limitation next April. In the face of our action disregarding the Hay-Pauncefote treaty as to the tolls and the general opinion that the Senate will refuse to arbitrate that subject, there is a grave fear that Great Britain may finally decide to let the arbitration treaties lapse without renewal.
    Nothing on this subject can be learned so far at the State Department. But these dispatches have already pointed out what a gloomy view many Senators take of the peace movement of the world as a result of our flaunting our treaties with Great Britain. If our treaty of arbitration with Great Britain lapses, it is considered almost certain that similar treaties with the other nations will fail also. They were all entered into for a period of five years, and they are nearly all coterminous. Treaties of this sort are entered into between two nations only on the assumption that other nations will agree to similar treaties, and the termination of an arbitration agreement between two important nations tends heavily to break up the whole system.
    How seriously Great Britain resents our course in regard to tolls is indicated already by her failure to accept our invitation to participate in the Panama Exposition. Senators this week were inclined to the opinion that a Democratic Administration, which they assume will be in power long before the canal is open, will have to grapple earnestly with this question. That Administration, they say — and it is Republican Senators who are now referred to — will have to do its utmost to continue its peace treaties. But what inducements this country will have to offer for continuing the treaties which we are, at the time of negotiations, in the very act of repudiating, is difficult to see.
    "If Gov. Wilson is elected," said a Republican Senator, discussing the matter, "he will have his hands full with this matter. The arbitration system of the world is at stake and heaven knows what he will do about it."
    The conclusion is inevitable that the Senate took its position on the canal tolls without much regard for the international aspects of the treaties and the House naturally without any regard whatsoever. Prominent Senators this afternoon were amazed to learn that there was any question of the arbitration treaties being at issue.
    Even Mr. Lodge, who, while urging favors for American shipping in the form of refunded tolls, has earnestly urged upon the Senate that straight-out free passage through the canal would mean a treaty violation and ought to mean a reference to The Hague, seemed to have forgotten that the treaty under which a reference to The Hague might come is on the point of expiring. The gravity of the situation, however, he realized at once, and conferred informally with Senator Root, who, as Secretary of State, negotiated all the arbitration treaties that we have. Mr. Root simply confirmed the facts without drawing any conclusions.
    It is not impossible that this phase of the subject, which was ignored altogether during the debate, will figure to-morrow when the report of the conferrees on the Panama bill is called up in the Senate. Already the conferrees have yielded to pressure in regard to the treaty aspects of the case and have eliminated the Senate's amendment extending to American ships in the trade over seas the favors granted by the House bill to the coastwise traffic. It is not considered likely that the Senate's heavy vote in favor of free passage for the coastwise shipping will be reversed. But the international features of the debate promises to be extremely interesting.
    It is said to be reasonably certain that no further protest will be made by Great Britain on behalf of the English mercantile interests against the Panama Canal bill if it finally takes the form reported yesterday from the Conference Committee. The British objection was laid against discrimination against British shipping. As such shipping is now privileged to enter into the American coastwise trade, which alone is to receive favored treatment in the canal, that objection is overcome.
    It is regarded as possible, however, that in deference to Canada the British Government may be led to object to the prohibition against the passage of railroad owned ships, but State Department officials are confident that objection would not hold under the treaty as the prohibition is to apply to American vessels as well as others, and there could be no charge of discrimination there.
    The amended Canal bill will be pushed for final action in both houses to-morrow. Opposition is expected from those who oppose free tolls to coastwise ships, or who object to other provisions of the bill, notably the railroad and anti-trust sections.
    Senator Bristow, Progressive, was the only representative of the Republican forces of the two houses who signed the conference agreement. He will join with Senator Simmons, Democrat, in urging approval of the agreement by the Senate. Senator Brandegee, who declined to approve the completed bill in conference, is expected to lead the fight against objectionable features of the agreement.
    It is understood that Senator Bristow has made it clear to Republicans in the Senate who oppose the bill as now agreed upon, that he will object to any temporary resolution that would carry the final approval of the bill over until December. One plan suggested was to give President Taft authority to begin an organization of the canal forces, leaving the general subjects of tolls and railroad control of steamship lines to be settled at the next session.
    Representative Adamson, who framed the original Canal bill, is expected to have the support of the Democratic forces in the House in approving the conference agreement Representative Stevens, the Republican House member of the Conference Committee, declined to sign the report.
    The insertion of a single wrong word in the conference report on the Panama Canal bill caused a snarl to-day that required the withdrawing of the report. When the snarl was straightened out it was found that the Bourne amendment as redrafted was far more drastic against the railroads than at first supposed. Instead of allowing a railroad to own a water line if that line is being operated to the public advantage, "or" without reducing competition, the Inter-State Commerce Commission must find that the line is held both to the public advantage and "without reducing competition."
    It is believed here that the corrected draft of the conference report will make joint ownership of water and rail lines almost impossible. In the cases where such ownership is still in the public interest it will still be held as a physical fact that competition to a certain degree is inevitably reduced by two lines otherwise in competition being held by the same owners. The final draft of the amendment is as follows:
    "If the Inter-State Commerce Commission shall be of the opinion that any such existing specified service by water other than through the Panama Canal is being operated in the interest of the public, and is of advantage to the convenience and commerce of the people, (and) that such extension will neither exclude, prevent, nor reduce competition on the route by water under consideration, the Inter-State Commerce Commission may, by order, extend the time during which such service by water may continue to be operated beyond July 1, 1914. In every case of such extension the rates, schedules, and practices of such water carrier shall be filed with the Inter-State Commerce Commission, and shall be subject to the act to regulate commerce and all amendments thereto in the same manner and to the same extent as is the railroad or other common carrier controlling such water carrier or interested in any manner in its operation; provided any application for extension under the terms of this proposition filed with the Inter-State Commerce Commission prior to July 1, 1914, but for any reason not heard and disposed of before said date, may be considered and granted thereafter."