the beginning. It would be a cause for sincere regret to all lovers of this ancient institution if now, at the threshold of the opening of this great canal, fraught with such wonderful commercial possibilities to the American people, we should depart from the path that has so long been pursued.

ROBERT F. BROUSSARD.
HENRY M. GOLDFOGLE.

FRANK E. DOREMUS.
JOSEPH R. KNOWLAND.
WILLIAM M. CALDER.

FROM SPEECH OF HON. JAMES A. O'GORMAN, OF NEW YORK, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JANUARY 22, 1913.

Mr. O'GORMAN. Mr. President, as I understand the bill which is being discussed, it provides for the repeal of a clause in the Panama Canal law exempting coastwise vessels from the payment of tolls, and, in the alternative, recommends that the disputed question of interpretation and construction of the HayPauncefote treaty be referred to arbitration. I am unalterably opposed to both propositions.

It has been stated that the legislation enacted at the last session was illadvised and hasty and without proper consideration. I am sure when that statement was made to the Senate the Senators who heard the declaration were surprised, because it is within the knowledge of every Member of the body that the bill enacted at the last session for the regulation of the Panama Canal received the consideration of the Interoceanic Canal Committee for many months and was the subject of discussion on the floor of the Senate from time to time for perhaps four or five weeks. Many Senators participated in the discussion; and after very thoughtful consideration of the merits of the bill, with the same objections then urged that we have heard in the last day or two, the Senate adopted the existing law by a vote of 45 in its favor against 15 in opposition.

The great remedy which was sought to be accomplished by that law receives very little attention and was scarcely alluded to by those who opposed its passage. It was sought by the proper use of the Panama Canal to place a wholesome restraint upon the transcontinental railroads in the imposition of their charges. It is common knowledge that for many years the transcontinental railroads looked with disfavor upon the building of a Panama Canal, because those interested in the railroads knew that with the opening of the Panama Canal cheap transportation by water would require the railroads to reduce their rates and would deprive them of the monopoly which they sought to obtain.

You rarely hear in the discussion of the Panama Canal bill any reference to its railroad features. I concede that the provisions which seek to exclude railroads from the use of the waterways of the country are drastic, but I insist that they are necessary if the people of the country are to be saved from the domination of great monopolies.

We provided in the bill that our coastwise ships should be permitted to use the canal free. We were induced to this course by two considerations: First, to encourage our coastwise shipping; and, second and more important, to secure the cheapest possible transportation by water. Cheap water transportation will compel the competing transcontinental railroads to maintain reasonable rates. The main purpose of the legislation was to reduce the cost of domestic transportation. This clearly presents a question of domestic policy, having no relation to international obligations.

Of course, we hear it said "You have violated the treaty with Great Britain,” and we are told from time to time that we must maintain our reputation for national integrity with the countries of the world. But we have not violated the treaty by exempting our coastwise vessels. England, under a similar act passed in 1815 guaranteeing equality to the ships of the United States in the harbors of Great Britain, has for 98 years discriminated in favor of her local shipping. We have some people in this country who are more English than the English themselves in the consideration of our treaty relations.

We are told that possibly a painful impression will be made. I am sure that a painful impression will be made abroad if we surrender one of the

most essential attributes of sovereignty. We can never permit a foreign power to intrude upon us its views affecting our domestic policy. If we yield once, further encroachments will be made upon our integrity as a Nation.

It has been stated that during the progress of the negotiations preceding the adoption of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty Senator Bard proposed in substance the adoption of a declaration that the provisions under discussion were not intended to affect the vessels of the United States. It is said that was voted down at the time, and that therefore it is a concession that no vessels of the United States should be exempted from the provisions of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. But I ask whether it is not more probable that the reason the suggested provision was voted down was that many of the lawyers in this body deemed it wholly unnecessary; that the treaty as it was originally proposed conferred that right upon the United States, and needed no modification in that regard?

We are reminded that we have been the apostles of the peace movement; that we would be untrue to our traditions if we did not permit this question to be disposed of by an arbitration court. In some quarters it is forgotten that a year ago, after long discussion, the Senate refused to enter into a treaty with any foreign power by which every controversy was to be settled by arbitration. We have numerous arbitration treaties now, but every treaty excludes from submission to arbitration three classes of questions those affecting our national honor, our vital interests, and the rights of third parties. And we have solemnly refused to go further in support of arbitration policies. The question confronting us is, Shall we permit foreign Governments to dictate to the United States respecting our domestic policies? If our right to pursue a domestic policy be challenged by a foreign power, our national integrity is impeached if we yield to such an influence.

Senators, I can conceive of no question more vitally affecting our national honor and integrity than a question such as is proposed to us now-that a domestic policy inaugurated by the Congress of the United States for the benefit of the American people must first secure the approval of a foreign nation.

*

**

Can you imagine what would happen if our positions were reversed and if we presumed to dictate to a foreign power what its domestic policy should be, and if when the foreign power refused to yield to our dictation we should say, "Well, this is a proper case for an international tribunal "?

As President Cleveland said on an historic occasion, "There is no calamity which a great nation can invite which equals that which follows a supine submission to wrong and injustice and the consequent loss of national self-respect and honor, beneath which are shielded and defended a people's safety and greatness."

It must not be forgotten that you can never have an international tribunal where the representatives of a foreign power are in sympathy with the Monroe doctrine. Foreign powers tolerate the Monroe doctrine, but they do not recognize it as international law.

If Great Britain had expended almost half a billion dollars in a public enterprise affecting the people of that country, what would be her answer if the United States undertook to impose undue restraint upon Great Britain's use of her own property? Nor should the circumstance be overlooked that in this legislation the very thing of which complaint is made is something which Great Britain concededly can do. Yet she would refuse the like privilege to us, notwithstanding the fact that we built the canal and that the people of the United States contributed over $400,000,000 for that purpose.

England and every European country for years have been subsidizing their vessels going through the Suez Canal. It is fair to suppose that England and other European powers will continue to subsidize their vessels going through the Panama Canal in their struggle for the commerce of the world. While there is nothing in the treaty which would prevent England or France or Germany or Spain subsidizing their vessels, Great Britain would impose certain restraints upon us. That, at least, was the attitude of the British Government in the first message which was received in June or July of last year. I understand the British Government has receded somewhat from the position it then took; that in a measure it now recognizes our right to subsidize our vessels and to remit the tolls, but insists that we must collect them in the first

instance; and because we refuse to do that, the suggestion is made that England is discriminated against and that we must have an arbitration.

There is no principle better established than that the law never requires the performance of an idle ceremony, because an idle ceremony is a useless and unsubstantial performance. Yet under one view advanced by Great Britain she would insist that we must collect the toll as our vessel passes through, even though we immediately return it.

Of course, the claim was made at first, in the general discussion last July or August, that we could not under any circumstances return any part of the toll, but I believe that Great Britain herself has receded from that position.

I do not intend, Mr. President, in view of the time I devoted to a discussion of this question on a former occasion, to delay the Senate further than to insist that we have passed a wholesome law, a law that will confer lasting benefits upon the people of the United States, and that we would, indeed, create a painful impression abroad if this mighty Nation should surrender the control of its domestic policies at the suggestion of a foreign power. That we never can do and maintain unimpaired the prestige and the honor and the glory of the Republic.

FROM SPEECH OF HON. JAMES R. MANN, OF ILLINOIS, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 28, 1913.

Mr. MANN. Mr. Chairman, nearly every day now we read of some article or some speech attacking the provision in the Panama Canal bill which Congress passed last summer in regard to the question of tolls, and particularly that portion of the law which exempted coastwise vessels from the payment of tolls. I do not propose to take very much time on the subject. It seems to me there is a concerted effort being made to discredit the action of Congress. Whether that effort proceeds in part from the activity of the transcontinental railways whose rates of fare are likely, or at least liable, to be affected seriously by the reduction of the cost of carriage by water I do not undertake at this time to say, but I read the other day a published statement attempting to discredit the action of Congress by the assumption that when that bill was under consideration in the House and in the Senate there were no Members present to speak of, and those who were here were worn out and too tired to think. I quote some language from this publication, as follows:

We must all realize as we look back that when that provision was adopted the Members of both Houses were much exhausted; we were weary physically and mentally. Such discussion as there was was to empty seats. In neither House of Congress during the period that this provision was under discussion could there be found more than a scant dozen or two of Members.

It is unnecessary in the House, so far as the membership of the House is concerned, to state that that statement is without foundation, because we all remember that in the discussion of the Panama Canal bill, and particularly of the Doremus amendment or substitute which was finally agreed to, the membership of the House was quite generally present; and I have seldom seen in my service in the House as large a membership of the House present when any discussion was being carried on.

But the statement that only a scant dozen or two Members of the House who were worn out is an assumption that the action of the House was without proper consideration, and is a reflection not only upon the House but the action which the House took.

The Doremus amendment or substitute for section 5 of the Panama Canal bill was, by consent of the House, printed in the Record of May 18. It was disposed of in Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union on May 21. It was disposed of in the House itself on May 23; and May, by the way, was before the membership of the House was tired out, if they were tired out at all, which I did not observe during the session.

Let me give a few votes which were taken in Committee of the Whole to show whether there were only a scant dozen or two Members of the House present during the discussion.

On the Adamson committee amendment there was a division, and the ayes were 83 and the noes were 43.

On the Adamson amendment to the Goldfogle amendment, on the same section, the ayes were 52 and the noes were 63.

On the Sims amendment to the Goldfogle amendment the ayes were 44 and the noes were 66.

On the Goldfogle amendment itself, on a division, the ayes were 33 and the noes were 80.

On the Good amendment to the Doremus substitute the ayes were 24 and the noes were 99.

On the Doremus substitute, on a division, the ayes were 91 and the noes were 91; and on tellers being ordered, the ayes were 100 and the noes were 90. On the final vote in the House the ayes were 147 and the noes were 128, "present" 8.

Mr. Chairman, I throw this into the RECORD because I am somewhat tired at some of the statements that are being made by extremely high authority for the purpose of making the country believe that that provision in the Panama Canal bill was without consideration by the House, and that action was taken in the absence of Members of the House. While I shall not quote the record in the Senate, it would bear analysis very much to the same effect.

But, Mr. Chairman, we are told that we were wrong in the action that we took; that the Panama Canal act should be submitted to some form of arbitration. The Hay-Pauncefote treaty is given as the basis for the claim that we do not have the authority to exempt our coastwise trade from the payment of tolls through this canal, and that claim is based upon paragraph 1, article 3, of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. That paragraph reads:

The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these rules, on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such nation, or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable.

Paragraph 3 of the same article provides:

Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not revictual nor take any stores in the canal except so far as may be strictly necessary, and the transit of such vessels through the canal shall be effected with the least possible delay in accordance with the regulations in force, and with only such intermission as may result from the necessities of the service.

Paragraph 4 of the same article provides:

No belligerent shall embark or disembark troops, munitions of war, or warlike materials in the canal, except in case of accidental hindrance of the transit, and in such case the transit shall be resumed with all possible dispatch.

Paragraph 5 of the same article provides:

The provisions of this article shall apply to waters adjacent to the canal within 3 miles of either end. Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not remain in such waters longer than 24 hours at any time, except in case of distress, and in such case shall depart as soon as possible; but a vessel of war of one belligerent shall not depart within 24 hours from the departure of a vessel of war of the other belligerent.

Paragraph 1 reads:

The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and war of all nationsAnd the claim is made that that puts us upon the same terms precisely as any other nation. If that be true as to merchant marine, it is also true as to vessels of war. There is no distinction in the treaty in that paragraph between war vessels and merchant vessels. If we have no authority under the provisions of this treaty to give preference to our merchant marine, then we have no authority to give preference to our war vessels; and if this treaty applies to our merchant marine, it also applies to the war vessels; and if it applies to the war vessels, if we happen to be at war with any country, then we can not keep one of our war vessels anywhere within 3 miles of either end of the canal for more than 24 hours except in case of distress, and in case of distress the vessel must depart as soon as possible. Do we propose to submit to arbitration the question of whether in time of war with some other country we can maintain one of our warships within 3 miles of either end of the canal? Yet it is perfectly plain that if we can give no preference to the merchant marine we have no authority to keep a war vessel, in time of war with any other country, within 3 miles of either end of the canal.

Mr. Chairman, to a certain extent we gave construction to the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. Shortly after the Hay-Pauncefote treaty we negotiated a treaty with the Republic of Colombia. There is no exception in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty

as to Colombia, and in that treaty which we negotiated with Colombia, though it never was ratified by the Republic of Colombia, it is provided in article 17:

The Government of Colombia shall have the right to transport over the canal its vessels, troops, and munitions of war at all times without paying charges of any kind.

If the provisions of the treaty apply to vessels of all nations, including the United States, they must also apply to the Republic of Colombia, and yet immediately after we had negotiated the Hay-Pauncefote treaty we negotiated this treaty with Colombia. Again, we negotiated a treaty with the Republic of Panama, in which we provided, in article 19

That the Government of the Republic of Panama shall have the right to transport over the canal its vessels and its troops and munitions of war, in such vessels at all times, without paying charges of any kind.

That treaty is in force; but that is not the only treaty that we negotiated. So distinguished a man as the Hon. Elihu Root, when he was Secretary of State, negotiated a treaty with the Republic of Panama, and another with the Republic of Colombia, and in the treaty with the Republic of Colombia, negotiated by Secretary of State Elihu Root, it was provided:

The Republic of Colombia shall have liberty at all times to convey through the ship canal now in course of construction by the United States across the Isthmus of Panama the troops, materials for war, and ships of war of the Republic of Colombia without paying any duty to the United States, even in the case of an international war between Colombia and another country.

Yet it is reported that certain gentlemen of high authority have recently declared that under the Hay-Pauncefote treaty we have no right to make any discrimination in favor of ourselves, much less the Republic of Colombia. While it is true that this treaty is not in effect, because it was not ratified by the Republic of Colombia, yet it was negotiated by our Secretary of State and ratified and approved by the Senate of the United States. [Applause.] It is not our fault that it is not existing law as a treaty.

Mr. LONGWORTH. Mr. Chairman, was any protest made by any foreign nation at the time of the negotiation of any of these treaties to which the gentleman has referred?

Mr. MANN. There was no protest by any foreign nation at the time. I do not think that any foreign nation ever dreamed that there was no authority on the part of the United States to grant the preference which we have granted until after the transcontinental railroads got busy. [Applause.]

THE RIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES TO EXEMPT COASTWISE SHIPPING FROM THE PAYMENT OF TOLLS. INTERPRETATION GIVEN TO HAY-PAUNCEFOTE TREATY BY SENATORS PRESENT WHEN INSTRUMENT WAS PENDING BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE AND THE BARD AMENDMENT WAS OFFERED.

[From Congressional Record, July 17, 1912.]

Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, some time ago I started to say something in regard to the question of tolls charged on vessels passing through the Panama Canal, which was under discussion here the other afternoon when I was unfortunately absent. I now renew the attempt. The question of canal tolls has arisen in connection with representations made by the Government of Great Britain in regard to our rights in fixing tolls. It so happened that I was in London when the second Hay-Pauncefote treaty was made, and, although the draft was sent from this country, that treaty was really made in London and should properly be called the Lansdowne-Choate treaty. I mention this merely to show that I had some familiarity with the formulation as well as the ratification of that treaty. When the treaty was submitted by the President to the Senate it so happened that I had charge of it and reported it to the Senate.

The second Hay-Pauncefote treaty, as Senators will remember, embodied in substance the amendments which the Senate had made to the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty. England had refused to accept those amendments and then the second treaty was made embodying in principle all for which the Senate had contended.

When I reported that treaty my own impression was that it left the United States in complete control of the tolls upon its own vessels. I did not suppose