World Affairs Institute

The Panama Tolls and ArbitrationSource: The Advocate of Peace (1894-1920), Vol. 75, No. 1 (JANUARY, 1913), pp. 1-2Published by: World Affairs InstituteStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20666592 .

Accessed: 16/05/2014 14:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

World Affairs Institute and Heldref Publications are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Advocate of Peace (1894-1920).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.130 on Fri, 16 May 2014 14:50:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

It

VOL. LXXV. WASHINGTON, D. C, JANUARY, 1913. No. 1

THE AMERICAN PEACE SOCIETY,

Publishers,

COLORADO BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C.

CABLE ADDRESS?"AMPAX, WASHINGTON."

MONTHLY, ONE DOLLAR PER YEAR. TEN CENTS PER COPY

Entered as Second-Class Matter June 1, 1911, at the Post Office at Washington, D. C, under the Act of July 16, 1894.

Make all checks payable to the American Peace Society. To per sonal checks on Western and Southern banks add ten cts. for collecting

CONTENTS. page

Editorials . 1-5 The Panama Tolls and Arbitration?The Militia Pay Bill

Fourth National Peace Congress?Death of Albert K. Smi ley?No Nobel Peace Prize in 1912?A. D. Call's Services to the Peace Cause in Connecticut.

Editorial Notes. 5-6 Arbitration of Pecuniary Claims?Socialists and the War?

A High Privilege?Theodore Marburg?A Great Weekly Paper.

What the Peace Organizations are Doing. 7 Brief Peace Notes. ...,...... . 7-8 General Articles. 8

In Honor of Albert K. Smiley.-. 8 The Baroness von Suttner's Tour. Charles E. Beals. 9 Organization Through Departments and State Peace Socie

ties. A. D. Call. 10 German-American Mass Meeting. 11 The Matter of the Panama Tolls. Everett P. Wheeler.:. 12 The First Mohonk Arbitration Conference. Edwin D. Mead. . 13 Pennsylvania Arbitration and Peace Society. William I. Hull 14 The Chicago Office. Charles E. Beals. 15 The Massachusetts Peace Society. James L. Tryon. 16 The Double Standard in Regard to Fighting. George M.

Stratton.:.'.... 17 Book Notices. 19 Branches of the American Peace Society. 21 Publications of the American Peace Society. 23

The Panama Tolls and Arbitration.

The British Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, presented to our Department of State, on December 9, the British government's protest against the granting of free passage through the Panama Canal of ships of citizens of the United States engaged in the coast wise trade. The protest is made on the ground that such exemption is discrimination in favor of United States ships and against those of Great Britain, and therefore in violation of the terms of the Hay Pauncefote treaty of 1901. Sir Edward supports his contention in a long argument, in which he gives a review of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty of 1850 and of the manner in which this convention was superseded by the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of 1901. The points of this argument have been given in full in the daily press and need not be repeated here. He proposes the reference of the question of the interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty to the Hague Court in case a satisfactory adjustment cannot be reached through direct negotiation.

Will our Government refuse to arbitrate the ques tion if settlement cannot be otherwise reached? That is the all-important question.

A section of our citizens, including members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives, dismiss the whole subject by saying that there is nothing to arbitrate; that the Panama Canal is ours; on our ter

ritory ; that we built it with our own money, and that therefore the question of its management is a domes tic one, with which Great Britain has nothing to do.

Those who thus jauntily dismiss the subject and say that we shall, of course, not consent to arbitrate what is purely a domestic affair, with which Great Britain has nothing whatever to do, ignore, either

intentionally or through ignorance, the history of the steps by which we came to have our present rights at Panama. These rights are not natural and in

alienable, but purely artificial, obtained through treaties. The canal is not on our territory, but on land which we have leased from Panama. We ob tained the right to construct the canal both from Panama and from Great Britain. Under the Clay ton-Bulwer treaty we had placed ourselves under cer tain obligations to Great Britain with regard to any canal that might be built at the isthmus. We ob tained release from these obligations by entering into others with Great Britain in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. These obligations are such that we cannot

ignore them without outright dishonesty, and false hood. Our Government has interpreted this Hay Pauncefote treaty in one way and the British gov ernment in another. In the spring of 1908, in the arbitration treaty negotiated by Mr. Root, we entered into solemn covenant with Great Britain to arbitrate any question of difference in regard to the interpre tation of treaties. We may be right or we may be wrong in our interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, but we are under solemn obligation by the'

treaty of 1908 to submit the question as raised by Great Britain to the Hague tribunal. Will we do this?

There are three possible courses open to our Gov ernment in the matter. One is to refuse absolutely, as has been proposed, to consider the question of arbi tration on the ground that the matter does not con cern the British government. The second is that

Congress rescind its action in exempting our coast wise vessels from paying tolls. The third is to ac

cept Great Britain's proposition and let the question of the interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty go to the Hague Court.

The first of these courses is impossible without

bringing upon the country a deep dishonor, which no true citizen of the nation can think of permitting.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.130 on Fri, 16 May 2014 14:50:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2 THE ADVOCATE OF PEACE. January,

The wisest course would, we think, be for Congress to rescind its action with regard to coast-wise ships, as this action was on other grounds unwise and inde fensible. If this course cannot be taken, then there is but one way out of the difficulty ?that of arbitra tion. Will our Government, which has been the leader among nations in urging and practicing arbi

tration, go back on its whole record and refuse to follow its own principles and its own professions in this case?

Those who urge that we cannot secure an impar tial tribunal seem to us to be taking a very narrow and unworthy view. We took a leading part in set

ting up the Hague tribunal. We were a party to the first case submitted to that tribunal. We have re

ferred other important disputes to it. We have treated it as if it were a worthy, impartial, and to us

genuinely satisfactory tribunal. And now it is pro posed that we ignore it because, forsooth, among all its hundred or more able and experienced judges none can be found who will consider our case justly and impartially! It is humiliating in the extreme that such a thought should ever have been uttered

by any American citizen of public standing or printed in any respectable American paper.

Let the case go without delay to The Hague if the other course is not practicable.

The Militia Pay Bill. The legislation proposed by the Committee on Mili

tary Affairs of the House of Eepresentatives "to further

increase the efficiency of the organized militia of the

United States" (H. E. 8141) is one of the most in

sidious measures ever brought forward by those who de

sire to militarize the country and give it ultimately a

great, costly military establishment like those of the

military powers of Europe. The object of the bill is to

have the National Government pay to the officers and

men of the militia of the States an amount equal to a

certain percentage of what is paid to the officers and

men of the regular army. The advocates of the meas

ure estimate that if it goes into effect it will cost about

nine and a quarter millions of dollars annually, with the

militia at its present strength, in addition to the five

millions which the militia already costs the National

Government.

The evils of the measure are clearly pointed out in

the minority report from the Committee on Military

Affairs, made to the House on December 10 by Hon.

James L. Slayden, of Texas:

1. It will greatly increase the militia strength of the

country, as its evident purpose is to do, and conse

quently immensely augment its cost.

2. It will lead the militia to demand greater compen sation than the bill provides, and it would be difficult

for Congress to resist the pressure that would be brought v^on it by such an organized body of men.

3. Additional legislation would be afterwards de

manded, the States themselves joining in this, and the General Government would be asked to assume the great expense of furnishing horses for cavalry and field artil

lery, money for armories, target ranges, drill, encamp ment, maneuver grounds, etc., all of which the States are for the most part unwilling or unable to furnish. It is estimated that in this way the cost of the militia would rise in a few years to more than $100,000,000 a

year, as some of the militia promoters desire.

4. As the militia increases in strength, its power to influence the policy and legislation of the various States as well as of the nation will also grow. This power would unquestionably be used to induce the State gov ernments to force the National Government to grant more and more benefits?increased pay, allowances, quarters, pensions, retired pay, etc., to the State militia.

5. The transference of the burden of maintaining the militia to the General Government would naturally re sult finally in converting the militia men into profes sional soldiers devoting themselves to military duties

much as do the men in the regular army. Thus would be built up in the nation ultimately a great military establishment essentially like those in Europe, but with even greater power of mischief, because the members of the militia would mingle in the common life of the citi zens of the country and be able to wield a powerful po litical influence, which the men in the regular army cannot do.

We do not care to lay any special emphasis on the contention made by some that this Militia Pay Bill is unconstitutional?that it proposes a course which inter feres with the authority of the States, in giving the President absolute control over the militia at certain times. The measure ought to be defeated on the

ground that it is an insidious attempt to militarize the

young men of the country, to saddle upon us in its out

working a huge, costly war establishment like those which are today cursing and crushing Europe, for which this country, because of its isolation, its demo cratic ideals, and its boasted leadership in the movement for international justice and peace, has no conceivable need. When the people become aware of the nature of the legislation which the militarists in Congress are

seeking to force upon them, at their expense and to their immense ultimate detriment, they will, we are sure,

speak out with almost a unanimous voice and make it

impossible for any such measure to be adopted. All the friends of peace are urged to write at once,

and to ask their neighbors to write, to their member of

Congress requesting him to work and vote against the

measure, and thus help to save the nation from an im

mense misfortune,

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.130 on Fri, 16 May 2014 14:50:49 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions