Panama Tolls And Policy.

New York Times 100 years ago today, May 12, 1913:
    Bench and Bar comes to the support of Senator O'Gorman in the position that our treaty obligations do not forbid discrimination in favor of the American marine through the Panama Canal. There is no denying the plainness of the language of the treaty, but Bench and Bar argues that it is "absurd" to suppose that the United Stales does not possess the same right as other nations to subsidize its marine. And since other nations can subsidize their marine by paying its canal tolls, therefore the United States is equally justified in not collecting the tolls.
    The law may be left to the lawyers, but the question of policy is open to the judgment of the plain man. Would it be policy for the United States to subsidise its marine because other nations could? Would it not be better for the United States to set the example of equality for all nations on a non-subsidy basis rather than of inequality on a subsidy basis? Admitting the right to subsidize, it is evident that the subsidies would not be equal, and that there would be a constant tendency toward taking advantage by raising subsidies. Why encourage a cutthroat competition in subsidies when it lies in the power of the United States to impose a universal non-subsidy policy? The United States has a clean slate on which, to write the rate sheet for all the world, and it might just as well, or rather a great deal better, make a universal and equal discrimination against all subsidized ships as to make a discrimination only nominally in favor of the American marine, since it would promptly be countervailed. Discrimination in favor of the American marine is the sure road to other discriminations, and inequalities which cannot be foreseen. Discrimination against any and all ships subsidized to countervail our tolls is the only way to guarantee equality.
    Equality doubtless is the last thing our marine wants, but still less can it want inequality to its disadvantage. One example of an unwelcome result of discrimination in favor of our marine is the temptation of other ships into the coastwise preserve. This is no random suggestion. There are reports of vessels under construction with foreign money and American forms of ownership for the precise purpose of competition with American vessels within their monopoly of discrimination. A privilege purchased at the cost of creating such competition would be dearly bought, and another example of boomerang legislation. Why invite such a result when it is better policy — regardless of the law and the treaty — to be fair and honorable?