Canal Policy Gains British Defender.

New York Times 100 years ago today, August 31, 1912:
The London Nation Declares a British Protest Would Be Serious Blunder.
THINKS OUR RIGHTS CLEAR
Liberal Weekly's Elucidation of the Exact Purpose of Act Is Thought Very Significant.
Special Cable to The New York Times.
    LONDON. Aug. 30.— Amid the chorus of denunciation of President Taft's action in signing the Panama Canal bill, a different note is struck by the Weekly Nation, which declares that America's case for the Panama act is very clear, in so far as a monopoly of American coastwise trade is concerned.
    The Nation argues that while the clause in the Panama Canal bill, virtually exempting American vessels engaged in foreign trade from the dues paid by other vessels passing through the canal, was a plain violation of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, the elimination of this clause from the final draft, which received the President's signature, removes the substance of the grievance. The retention of the clause exempting from dues the American coastwise shipping has only the appearance of discrimination against foreign vessels, it says. The real discrimination exists in the United States navigation laws, which have insured a monopoly of coastwise trade to American vessels. The Nation goes on:
    "It cannot be contended with any show of reason that the opening of the Panama Canal requires the Government of the United States to cancel this monopoly. Such a concession was evidently no part of the intention of either party to the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, nor does the coastwise clause impose any new or real discrimination. It merely safeguards or secures the discrimination, already existing, and is founded upon the general principles of a policy, which have no particular references to Panama."
    President Taft's contention, according to The Nation, goes beyond the requirements of the case.
    "All that President Taft needed to argue," says The Nation, "was that it could not be contended that the Panama act should be made an instrument for the practical abandonment of the navigation policy previously in operation.
    "Perhaps it was unnecessary to have inserted in the act any clause, presenting this appearance of discrimination, for the act could hardly have been interpreted by any international court court as designed to remove from the United States the right of regulating purely internal traffic, which belongs to every sovereign power. But fair-minded people must recognize that the clause inflicts no new grievance upon the trade of this or any other country.
    "We hope, therefore, there is no truth in the rumor that our Government is entering a protest at Washington against this provision in the Panama act. Such a protest, especially at such a moment, when even the most obliging of Americans is on guard against any show of 'knuckling under' to foreigners, would be a serious blunder. No American Government could concede a point, involving incidentally so grave a disturbance of a deep-rooted policy, and we do not for a moment believe that any international tribunal would decide the matter in our favor."
    In conclusion, The Nation thinks that the clause excluding from all use of the canal the ships owned by railroads which are themselves competitors for traffic with the Panama route, may form a fitting subject of discussion between the British and American Governments, for it would appear as if the refusal to the Canadian companies of the use of the canal for the purposes of foreign, that is non-American, commerce, was an infringement of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. It goes on:
    "The vehement arraignment by European journals of the claim of America to remit the fees of coasting ves- sols is founded on a complete missapprehension of the governing facts of the situation. Although this misapprehension seems to be shared by not a few leaders of public opinion in the United States, this support is evidently a survival of the strong feeling aroused against the quite unjustifiable claims of the earlier draft of the measure.
    "When it comes to be recognized that the act merely confirms the previously existing discrimination in favor of American coastwise trade, there will, we think, be general acquiescence in this provision."
    The deduction drawn from this article in the leading Liberal weekly is that the reports published as to the character of the latest representations made by the British Government to Washington are exaggerated.