England Renews Her Canal Protest.

New York Times 100 years ago today, August 29, 1912:
Notifies Us That She Will Submit Questions at Issue to The Hague.
TREATY INVALID, WE CONTEND
Our Attitude Will Be That the Concessions Accorded Britain by Hay Violated the Constitution.
Special to The New York Times.
    WASHINGTON. Aug. 28.— Great Britain for the second time has protested against the step taken by the United States in allowing free passage through the Panama Canal to American vessels. Mitchell Innes, British Chargé d'Affaires, in the absence of Ambassador Bryce, called at the State Department to-day to present a note declaring the unalterable view of Great Britain as to the obligations imposed on the United States by the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, and to suggest that the unavoidable course of his Government will be to submit to The Hague tribunal the questions at issue between the two countries.
    No new phase of the difference between the United States and Great Britain was apparent in the incident. The State Department did not give out the text of the note, nor any statement as to its effect on the diplomatic aspect of the recent action of Congress in providing for the free use of the canal by American shipping. There was some surprise at the simple brevity of the note, inasmuch as several weeks ago Mr. Innes advised Secretary Knox that his Government had decided to forward to this Government a supplementary note, in which would be set forth at length the argument by Great Britain as to the rights believed to be conveyed by the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, and that document had been awaited with no small concern in the State Department. It was at first supposed to-day that the extended note would be presented, but such was not the case. The attitude of Great Britain is still friendly to negotiation, and the request to submit all questions arising out of the application of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty to our use and control of the Panama Canal is noticeably conditioned on the failure of the two Governments to arrive at an agreement before the alternative of a trial at The Hague be resorted to by Great Britain. There is interest in the presentation of the note by Mr. Innes from the fact that he has taken part in numerous conferences with Secretary Knox and Mr. Anderson, the counsellor of the State Department, in which the position of each country has been discussed fully. Here it should be said that Great Britain has been placed in possession, through Mr. Innes, of the argument of the United States as to the bearing of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty on the control of the canal by Congress. The position taken by this Government thus far in the informal conferences has been that the concessions made by Mr. Hay in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty were directly in violation of the constitution and therefore void from the beginning.
    The constitution declares that "this constitution and the laws of Congress which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land."
    In Article IV., Section 3, it is provided that Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and legislations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. The Canal Zone having been granted to the United States by the treaty with Panama, and the canal being the property of the United States, it is held that Congress alone can determine what rules shall be made for the control of the canal. This construction of the case, it is true, would seem to brush aside summarily much that has been retained in all the discussions of the rights of the two countries in the canal, but it must be remembered that the conditions at that time when the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was negotiated were practically swept away with the Panama revolution and the subsequent treaty with the United States granting the Canal Zone.
    With the Submission of this view of the matter this Government will let the whole question lie until Great Britain takes the further step to put the controversy before The Hague Court.