Your search within this document for 'final' resulted in five matching pages.
1

“...17 shall conflict with rights herein granted to the United States, in which case the rights of the United States shall be superior. All damages caused to the owners of private lands or private property of any kind by reason of the grants contained in this treaty or by reason of the operations of the United States, its agents or employees, or by reason of the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection of the said canal or of the works of sanitation and protection herein provided for, shall be appraised and settled by a joint commission appointed by the governments of the United States and the Republic of Panama, whose decisions as to such damages shall be final, and whose awards as to damages shall be paid solely by the United States. No part of the works on said canal or the Panama railroad or any auxiliary works relating thereto and authorised by the terms of this treaty shall be prevented, delayed or impeded by or pending such proceedings to...”
2

“... difference of opinion under this article or any other provisions of this treaty shall affect or interrupt the full operation and effect of this convention in all other respects. Article XV. The joint commission referred to in Article VI. shall be established as follow :— The President of the United States shall nominate two persons and the President of the Republic of Panama shall nominate two persons, and they shall proceed to a decision; but in case of disagreement of the commission (by reason of their being equally divided in conclusion) an umpire shall be appointed by the two governments, who shall render the decision. In the event of the death, absence or incapacity of a commissioner or umpire, or of his omitting, declining or ceasing to act, his place shall be filled by the appointment of another person in the manner above indicated. All decisions by the majority of the commission or by the umpire shall be final. Article XVI. The two governments shall make adequate...”
3

“... apply and impose such duties upon the clerks and ministerial officers of the new courts created by this Act having jurisdiction of like cases, matters, and duties. All existing laws in the Canal Zone governing practice and procedure in existing courts shall be applicable and adapted to the practice and procedure in the new courts. The Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit of the United States shall have jurisdiction to review, revise, modify, reverse, or affirm the final judgments and decrees of the District Court of the Canal Zone and to render such judgments as in the opinion of the said appellate court should have been rendered by the trial court in all actions and proceedings in which the Constitution, or any statute, treaty, title, right, or privilege of the United States, is involved and a right thereunder denied, and in cases in which the value in con- troversy exceeds one thousand dollars, to be ascertained by the oath of either party, or by other competent...”
4

“... permitting the continuance of any vessel or vessels already in operation, or for the purpose of asking an order to install new service not in conflict with the provisions of this paragraph. The commission may on its own motion or the application of any shipper institute procee- dings to inquire into the operation of any vessel in use by any railroad or other carrier which has not applied to the commission and had the question of competition or the possibility of com- petition determined as herein provided. In all such cases the order of said commission shall be final. If the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be of the opinion that any such existing specified service by water other than through the Panama Canal is being operated in the interest of the public and is of advantage to the convenience and commerce of the people, and that such extension will neither exclude, prevent, nor reduce competition on the route by water under consideration, the Interstate Commerce Commission...”
5

“... under consideration"; and, if it finds this to be the case, to extend the time during which such service by water may continue beyond the date fixed in the act for its first operation—to wit, July 1, 1914. Whenever the time is extended, then the water carrier, its rates and schedules, and practices are brought within the control of the Interstate Commerce Commission. How far it is within the power of Congress to delegate to the Interstate Commerce Commission such wide discretion it is unnecessary now to discuss. There is ample time between now and the time of this provision of the act’s going into effect to have the matter examined by the Supreme Court, or to change the form of the legislation, should it be deemed necessary. Certainly the suggested invalidity of this section, if true, would not invalidate the entire act, the remainder of which may well stand without regard to this provision. Fifth. The final objection is to a provision which prevents the owner of any...”