Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

common law doctrine of stare decisis as to the rights of the parties should apply if the doctrine could be enforced in view of the original partnerships and vested rights. We are plainly obligated to operate the Panama Canal "for the benefit of mankind on equal terms to all.”

CHAPTER II

Legal and Moral Aspects of Tolls-Exemption

Citizens of the United States should, as we see it' brush aside all personal, political and local considerations and approach the problem on a high moral plane and in a judicial frame of mind. We should turn a deaf ear to all race or religious appeals, and turn an equally deaf ear to the blair of party trumpets, however loud and thrilling, just as a judge should when he puts on his judicial robes and ascends the bench to decide a case of law on contracts, regardless of his personal preference, feelings or other considerations not a part of the record.

Careful examination of the record of the issue which has been made up; an issue which was begun, as far as the governing principles are concerned, as far back as 1826, which record is on file in the archives of all civilized Governments and of all large libraries of the world, constrained us to urge the repeal of this ill-considered act of Congress.

Before we, in that manner, go down not merely in American history, but in the history of the world, let us pause, examine the record again and reason together without race or party prejudice. Let us pause, and, with that immutable record before us, think again before we continue on a course with such far-reaching consequences.

So far as party platforms are concerned we will not

discuss them. They have no standing or authority in an international dispute of this character.

When the party platforms were adopted in 1912, this question was not an international, or national, issue. Only those people who took official part in formulating, negotiating and ratifying the treaties, and passing this act of Congress, were familiar with the terms of the treaties, and the intent of the high contracting parties as shown by contemporaneous acts and previous representations.

This is the first time the matter has ever confronted the American people as a live issue. The protest of a great and friendly nation made it impossible, in any degree of reasonableness or honor, to await the outcome of any kind of available national referendum.

Besides, it is not a national or domestic matter, but a diplomatic and international question of law and honor, based upon a record made up—a completed record. The unanimous vote of the American electorate, in favor of the act, and against the position of the President, would not change the facts, and the plain rights of the parties in connection with the international agreement under which the Panama Canal Zone was leased by the United States, the canal was built and must be operated, unless the agreement between the contracting powers is changed.

The Constitution of the United States is supreme and not a party platform if there is a conflict.

tion:

Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitu

"This Constitution and the laws of the United States 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, and the judges in any State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States on entering upon the duties of the office. That is more binding on them than a party platform. There ought to be no conflict between party platform and Constitution. If there is, the party platform should be revised at the earliest opportunity. Action should be in harmony with the Constitution.

We cannot understand the reasoning and the sense of proportion by which men with apparently the best and most honorable intentions, have placed adherence to party planks higher than a nation's solemn international obligations.

As stated in the preface to this work many entirely sincere persons have been led astray on the subject of Panama Canal tolls-exemption by the popular assumption of an entirely false promise as to the record title to the strip of land called the Canal Zone. Article XIV of the treaty with Panama states:

"As the price or compensation for the rights, powers and privileges granted in this convention by the Republic of Panama to the United States [notice, sovereignty is not mentioned] the Government of the United States agrees to pay $10,000,000 in gold coin of the United States on the exchange of the ratification of this convention and also an annual payment during the life of this convention, of $250,000 in like gold coin, beginning nine years after the date aforesaid."

It expressly states that only rights are granted and that during the life of the convention. These rights are granted for a price. The main reason for the attitude of most people, other than those interested in getting a discrimination in favor of coastwise shipping, is an impression, created by newspaper editorials, that the United States owns the Canal Zone, and that like the Erie and other canals it runs through our territory.

That phase of the matter is well covered in an editorial of a New York afternoon paper dated March 27, headed the "Panama Lease." It expresses the situation on that subject as shown by the record.

"When the canal strip was acquired it was not contended that this country had acquired sovereignty. The matter is discussed in President Roosevelt's message of January 4, 1904, written after the Panama revolution and the negotiation of the treaty with the new republic. The act of Congress of June 28, 1902, covering the preliminaries for the building of the canal, authorized the President to acquire from Colombia 'perpetual control' of a strip of land six miles wide over which this country, under the lease, was to have governmental jurisdiction. The HayHerran treaty negotiated with Colombia, whose rejection by Colombia precipitated the Panama revolution, so provided in practically the same language as that contained in the later treaty with Panama. In the message of January 4, 1901, Mr. Roosevelt discussed whether the HayHerran treaty conferred on us sovereign rights and whether Colombia was warranted in rejecting the treaty on this account. Says the message:

"The treaty, instead of requiring a cession of

« AnteriorContinuar »