President Suggests Panama Canal Court.

New York Times 100 years ago today, August 20, 1912:
Would Provide Appeal for Foreign Ship Owners Aggrieved by No-Toll Ruling.
ASKS CONGRESS TO AID HIM
Hopes to Preserve Hay-Pauncefote Treaty — House Frowns Upon Recommendation — Text of Message.
Special to The New York Times.
    WASHINGTON, Aug. 19.— In a formal message to Congress, President Taft this afternoon asked that a joint resolution be passed fixing the meaning of the Panama Canal bill so as to settle the international questions at issue.
    The President's suggestion, as set forth in these dispatches last night, is that the resolution provides for an appeal to American courts by foreign shipowners who feel aggrieved at the discrimination against them in the matter of tolls in favor of American ships passing through the canal.
    The President reiterated his belief in the right of this country under the treaty to make this discrimination. But the informal protest of Great Britain and the argument of distinguished members of the House and Senate have convinced him that the question was still open to doubt. The preservation of out international relations, he said, was peculiarly the duty of the Executive, and that was his chief reason for asking the amendment.
    The President spent much time considering the matter both yesterday and today. Every Cabinet officer in the city has been in consultation with him, and the British Charge' d'Affaires, A. Mitchell Innes, has directly communicated with him. It is believed that it was on the advice of his Cabinet officers that Mr. Taft did not refer in his message to the Root-Bourne amendment prohibiting passage through the canal to railroad-owned ships. Great Britain objects to that section also. But the President felt that it was hopeless to expect Congress to meet that objection, and at the same time the political effect to his own fortunes in the coming campaign would be disastrous should he seem to champion the cause of the railroads.

Delay May Be Only Result.
    The one recommendation the President did make in regard to the tolls was not favorably received at either end of the Capitol. In the House, particularly, the talk to-night is that if the President really intends to veto the bill unless the resolution is adopted, the whole subject will go over without any provision until the next session. This is simply a return to the plan considered many weeks ago in the Senate, and it really seems to be the easiest way out of the trouble. In both chambers the message was referred to the committees in charge of the bill, and on the House side the talk was that the message would stay there indefinitely without action. The President in his message did not directly threaten the veto, and there is still considerable expectation that in the end he will sign it, whether he gets his resolution or not.
    From an international point of view the President's suggestion has already encountered considerable criticism. It is considered an admission of the weakness of American faith without providing any remedy for it. The President's message, it is pointed out, concedes beyond all question the treaty rights involved and allows countries to sue for damages under the treaty. But instead of having those rights settled once and for all by The Hague tribunal, recourse is sugtested only to an American district court, with appeal either by the alien or by this Government to the Supreme Court of the United States.
    Under this suggestion the American courts would undoubtedly have to construe our treaty with Great Britain. But bur arbitration treaty with that nation provides for the adjudication of the treaties by an international tribunal. The Presidents suggestions re-enacts the Hay-Pauncefote treaty and specifically declares its provisions still in force. How its terms can be definitely settled without appeal to an international court does not appear. The message is as follows:

    That nothing contained in the act entitled "An act to provide for the opening, maintenance, protection, and operation of the Panama Canal and the sanitation and government of the canal zone" shall be deemed to repeal any provision of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, or to affect the judicial construction thereof, or in any wise to impair any rights or privileges which have been or may he acquired by any foreign nation under the treaties of the United States relative to tolls or other charges for the passage of vessels through the Panama Canal, and that when any alien, whether natural person, partnership company, or corporation, considers that the charging of tolls or the enforcement of any other regulation under and pursuant to the provisions of this act violates in any way any such treaty rights or priviliges, such alien shall have the right to bring an action against the United States for a redress of the injury which he considers himself to have suffered, and the district courts of the United States are hereby given jurisdiction to hear and determine such cases and to decree the appropriate relief, and from the decision of such district courts there shall be an appeal by either party to the action of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Chance for Redress to All.
    This language negatives absolutely any desire on the part of Congress to repeal the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, or to violate its provisions by this legislation, and leaves open to any person who deems himself aggrieved by the provisions of the act an opportunity to appeal to our courts.
    I think the importance of our standing before the world as anxious to give to the world an opportunity to test this question in the courts is an earnest of our good faith in attempting to keep within our treaty obligations.
    After full examination of the treaty and of the treaty which preceded it, I feel confident that the exemption of the coastwise vessels of the United States from tolls and the imposition of tolls on vessels of all nations engaged in the foreign trade is not a violation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. But distinguished lawyers in the House and Senate differ from this construction, and the Secretary of State has received an informal protest from the British Government that the contemplated legislation is a violation of her treaty rights.
    I am sure that it is not the intention of Congress to violate the Hay-Pauncefote treaty or to enact anything inconsistent with its provisions, and that it certainly is not its purpose to repeal by subsequent enactment the treaty, in so far as it represents the law of the land. It is of the highest importance, however, that this attitude should be made clearly known to the nations of the world, and that we should avoid any apparent justification for criticism.

    The message, after being read in the House, was referred to the Inter-State Commerce Committee on motion of Democratic Leader Underwood. That committee has adjourned for the session, and Chairman Underwood sought to have the bill left on the Speaker's table, but the House immediately voted otherwise. "It's gone to bed so far as the House is concerned," was Mr. Adamson's remark. He added that he had not been able to command a quorum of his committee for the last three weeks.

House Leaders Not Enthusiastic.
    There is no disposition on the part of the House leaders, so far as they would indicate to-night, to attempt to press a resolution of the character of that recommended by the President. There was an informal conference between Representative Sherley of Kentucky, who talked with the President on the subject, and others who have taken a prominent part in Panama legislation in the House, and the sentiment expressed was that there would be no further legislation, and that if the President vetoed the bill the whole matter would go over to the December session of Congress.
    The President's draft of the resolution was severely criticised to-night in various circles. It was pointed out that under its loosely worded text any provision in the bill could be objected to by an alien and suit could be brought by aliens to set it aside, while citizens of this country would have no such rights. Though the President does not mention the inhibition against railroad-owned ships, that, too, could be disputed by ships belonging to the Canadian Pacific as a discrimination against them, and suit at once could be brought for setting it aside. It is certain that if the resolution ever gets before Congress for consideration it will be bitterly attacked on the score of its alleged purpose to favor the railroads. Even the whole scale of tolls fixed under the bill could be disputed by an alien on the ground that the Hay-Pauncefote treaty says they must be "fair." The more the President's draft is studied, the less it is liked, and the feeling to-night is that no resolution will pass. But the President is expected to sign the bill.
    One reason why President Taft is anxious for the passage of the bill, and why he is expected, therefore, not to veto it, is that any delay now throwing the matter into the next session would imperil his chances to organize the canal government. Undoubtedly, he is eager to appoint the Governor and his subordinates and to get things started there in his own way. If he waits until next session the Democrats will see that things are held up long enough to allow Mr. Wilson, if he is elected, the privilege of making the appointments and starting the new administration.