In other words, Great Britain had not abandoned a foot of her territory or released a single claim that she had been asserting.

In fact, that the treaty is a virtual recognition on the part of the United States of the right of Great Britain, either as owner or protector, to the whole extensive coast of Central America, sweeping round from the Rio Hondo to the port and harbor of San Juan de Nicaragua, together with the adjacent Bay Islands, except the comparatively small portion of this between the Sarstoon and Cape Honduras. According to their construction

That is, the British construction

the treaty does no more than simply prohibit them from extending their possessions in Central America beyond the present limits. It is not too much to assert that if in the United States the treaty had been considered susceptible of such a construction it never would have been negotiated under the authority of the President, nor would it have received the approbation of the Senate. The universal conviction in the United States was that when our Government consented to violate its traditional and time-honored policy and to stipulate with a foreign Government never to occupy or acquire territory in the Central American portion of our continent the consideration for this sacrifice was that Great Britain should, in this respect at least, be placed in the same position with ourselves.

Mr. Buchanan calls attention in this message to the fact that attempts upon the part of this Government to bring about an adjustment of differences growing out of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty had proved abortive, and expressed the hope that a reasonable adjustment of the Central American questions might finally be reached between the two Governments.

On December 3, 1860, President Buchanan again sent a message to Congress, in which he advised Congress that the discordant constructions of the ClaytonBulwer treaty, which at different periods bore a threatening aspect, had resulted in a final settlement entirely satisfactory to this Government, and this through the execution of treaties between the Republics of Honduras and Nicaragua and the British Government; but this statement was not justified by subsequent proceedings, and negotiations between the two Governments continued, and even after the execution of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty they are continuing, and the time has now arrived when this Government place a construction upon the Hay-Pauncefote treaty in line with the views that have been expressed by former Presidents and Secretaries of State, not inconsistent with the terms of the treaty but entirely consistent with American interests and with the doctrine as enunciated by President Monroe in 1823.

Coming now to the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, I insist that there is nothing in it which would prevent discriminatory tolls or free tolls to vessels engaged in the coastwise traffic.

I am not so sure but that under the terms of that treaty we not only have the power to grant discriminatory or even free tolls to our coastwise traffic, but we have the right to treat American vessels engaged in foreign commerce on a different basis from foreign vessels engaged in foreign commerce, and, although it is probably not the time to do it now, the time will come when this Government will insist on its right to grant discriminatory tolls to Amercan vessels engaged in foreign commerce.

I venture to suggest that although it in terms supersedes the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, it by no means settles and adjusts the controversies between Great Britain and the United States which grow out of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.

I call attention to the Hay-Pauncefote treaty for just a moment. The first draft of this treaty that came to the Senate of the United States proposed that both Great Britain and the United States were to formulate the rules that were to govern the use of the canal, practically placing a joint protectorate over the use of any canal that might be completed. I am not admitting here for a moment that we had then in view the construction of a canal over our own territory, but the construction of a canal over some other territory than our own. The purpose at first was to allow both Governments to have jurisdiction over the fixing of rules and regulations for the conduct of the canal. When it was finally agreed upon and after amendments made in the Senate this provision was changed and article 2 of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty provides:

It is agreed that the canal may be constructed under the auspices of the Government of the United States, either directly at its own cost or by gift or loan of money to individuals or corporations or through subscription to or purchase of stock or shares, and that, subject to the provisions of the present convention, the said Government shall have and enjoy all the rights incident to such construction, as well as the exclusive right of providing for the regulation and management of the canal.

Now, Mr. President, what are the rights incident to construction and what are the rights as to the exclusive authority of providing for the regulation and

management of the canal? It has been stated here that article 2 is controlled by article 3. It was stated on the floor of the Senate, in answer to a question put to the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. PERCY], that the United States had absolutely no rights that were not granted under the terms of the treaty to Great Britain or to any other power on the face of the earth. I certainly dissent to that view.

Mr. President, I insist that section 2 gives to the United States the exclusive right to provide for the regulation and management of the canal. Article 3 of the treaty is not a positive and binding obligation upon this Government; it is a directory provision only that the basis of the neutralization of the ship canal shall be substantially as embodied in the convention of Constantinople. In other words, the convention of Constantinople was to be a substantial basis for such rules as the United States might adopt for the use of the canal by other powers.

That the United States was not understood to be included within the words "all nations" at the time the treaty was ratified by the Senate, has been affirmed by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, and he has expressly stated in this Chamber that if he had known at the time the treaty was reported by him from the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate that the words "all nations" embraced the United States, he would not for a moment have assented to such construction.

Can it be that The Hague tribunal-even if the questions involved can ever reach it as is suggested by the Senator from Massachusetts, is a packed tribunal, where a case is already prejudiced against us, because the interests of the continental powers are adverse to the interests of the American people in this controversy? If that be true, Mr. President, then the Senate acted with great wisdom when it declined to give its consent to the British and French arbitration treaties as they came to this body, and the sooner proceedings are initiated under The Hague convention to withdraw from it the better it will be for the American people.

To include the United States in the words "all nations" would practically make us powerless to protect ourselves even against an adversary in time of war, and we would be placed in the anomalous position of putting naval armaments of other nations through the canal to destroy our coastwise cities and give to them the same facilities that we would be allowed to give to our own vessels being transferred from one coast to the other to protect those same cities against the enemy's vessels. I know that Senators have said that the condition of war is an anomalous condition and that all treaties are suspended during times of war, and yet these gentlemen are sticklers for the strictest construction of the language of that treaty. Their theory ought to go the full length, and it ought to be observed in time of war as well as any other time, because wars can not more seriously affect the interests of the country than would our interests be affected if the construction which some Senators seek to place upon this treaty is placed upon it.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I appeal to the Senate to reject the amendments to the bill which were proposed by the Senate committee and to enact it substantially as it came from the House of Representatives. It embodies the American idea; it grants free tolls to ships engaged in coastwise traffic; it forbids the use of the canal by railroad owned or controlled ships or ships in which railroads have an interest. If any complaint is to be made against the House bill it is that it ought to go further and exempt or at least discriminate in favor of American ships engaged in foreign commerce; but that may safely be left to future legislation. The bill as it came to the Senate from the House had been carefully considered from every viewpoint, extensive hearings had been held, and the report of the committee, with the views of the minority as expressed in a separate report, both testified to the care and attention which was given to the measure while it was before the House committee. The people of this country will be satisfied with nothing less than a bill substantially along the lines of the bill which passed the House of Representatives.

FROM SPEECH OF HON. JOSHUA W. ALEXANDER, OF MISSOURI, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY 17, 1912.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. Chairman, it is impossible for me in the time allotted to me to discuss this question as I would like to. I wish to discuss it from the standpoint of the American merchant marine. I will say, in passing, that I am not undertaking to reflect the views of the committee of which I have the honor to be chairman, for I do not know the views of the committee as a whole. I do know, however, that the members of the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries are all very anxious to do something to restore our American merchant marine in the foreign trade.

It is true that our coastwise merchant marine is greater than that of any other nation, and if we include our coastwise merchant marine we have a larger merchant marine than any other nation save Great Britain; but it is a source of humiliation to American citizens that more than 90 per cent of our foreign trade is carried in foreign ships and has been for many years past. I will not undertake to go into the causes of the decline of our American merchant marine. They are many and have often been discussed on this floor. But with this bill pending I could not let the occasion pass without suggesting to the majority of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce that, if it may be done consistently, they should be willing and anxious to respond to this demand and concede something to our American merchant marine.

I must confess that the situation here is an anomalous one. I would think that an American citizen, a Member of this Congress, jealous of the rights of his own country and his own flag, would leave it for some other nation to contend that we may not discriminate in favor of American shipping in the matter of tolls on the Panama Canal. I can very well understand why the railroads do not want this discrimination. I can very well understand why the foreign shipping interests do not want this discrimination.

The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. STEVENS] in his very able speech has undertaken to prove that it will be a violation of the terms of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty for us to discriminate in favor of our vessels in the coastwise trade, and to support his contention refers to the Welland Canal. Yet the two cases are not paralleled in any respect.

We have never asked Canada to let us share in her coastwise trade. Her vessels have a monopoly of that trade, as do our vessels of our coastwise trade. The trade between the United States and Canada on the Great Lakes is foreign trade. The Welland Canal connects international waterways-Lakes Erie and Ontario. The canal is built on Canadian territory and is under the control of the Dominion Government. It is true that in 1888 and again in 1891 representations were made by the United States that the stipulated equality in the use of the canal was denied in Canada. The tolls charged on grain, flour, and certain other articles passing through the Welland Canal amounted to 20 cents a ton, but for some years, by an annual order in council issued before the opening of lake navigation, a rebate of 18 cents a ton was granted on grain carried to Montreal or points east thereof.

Later, the Canadian Government, by order in council dated April 7, 1896, abolished all fees previously exacted from vessels navigating inland waters when entering or clearing above Montreal. Thus the controversy was happily ended.

Nevertheless it clearly appears that Canada never did concede that she had violated any of the treaty rights of the United States. The only way we forced her to make concessions to us was by the Congress passing the act of July 26, 1892, by which we gave Canada to understand that if she did not concede to us reciprocal treatment in the use of the Welland Canal we would deny to her the free passage of her vessels through the St. Marys Falls Canal.

Just what that controversy and its settlement has to do with our right to grant to American vessels free tolls in the use of the Panama Canal, I repeat, I am unable to understand.

It might be bad policy for us to do as contended by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Stevens], but it can not be seriously contended that we violate the

terms of any treaty between ourselves and Canada in doing so, and it can not be seriously contended that Canada should be accorded equal treatment with American vessels engaged in the coastwise trade in passage through the Panama Canal under the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, unless such treatment may be claimed for the vessels of Great Britain and of all other nations that may apply therefor.

That we have the undeniable right to discriminate in the matter of Panama Canal tolls in favor of vessels of the United States engaged in the coastwise trade and, if we elect to do so, grant them free tolls, is settled by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Olsen v. Smith (195 U. S., 332). In that case the treaty with Great Britain expressly provided that

No higher or other duties or charges shall be imposed in any ports of the United States on British vessels than those payable in the same ports by vessels of the United States.

The court held that this treaty was not violated by either the Texas statute or section 4444 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, exempting coastwise steam vessels from the payment of pilotage charges.

This decision, it seems to me, should settle the question once and for all. But in the absence of any decision by this great tribunal, it should be plain that we have the right to treat our vessels engaged in the coastwise trade as we please, in view of the undisputed fact that no foreign vessel may participate in that trade, and it is no concern of theirs how we treat our vessels in the coastwise trade, whether we grant them free tolls or not.

But it was not my intention to give this phase of the subject more than a passing notice.

1

The gentlemen entertaining the contrary view, however, have expressed their contention with such earnestness and plausibility that I have felt it my duty to give it more extended notice.

But my contention is that we may not only discriminate in favor of vessels of the United States engaged in the coastwise trade, but that we may discriminate in favor of vessels of the United States engaged in the foreign trade in the matter of tolls in the use of the Panama Canal, and, following my thought on that subject, is it not a little remarkable that the President of the United States, having in view our treaty with Great Britain, should deliberately announce in a message to Congress that, in his opinion, we have a clear right to discriminate in favor of our shipping, not alone in the coastwise trade, but in the foreign trade as well?

The former Secretary of War, Hon. Henry L. Stimson, in his last annual report, page 54, is equally clear in his opinion that the United States may legally and morally relieve American vessels from payment of tolls for use of the Panama Canal without violating the provisions of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. I quote his language:

An

Involved in the problem of fixing tolls is the question whether the United States has the right under the treaty to pay the tolls on American vessels using the canal. examination of the treaty and the surrounding circumstances to my mind leaves no doubt as to the right of the United States, both legally and morally, to pay the tolls on its vessels. This is a perfectly recognized practice in respect to the tolls of the Suez Canal, the toll rules of which canal were adopted by the United States in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty for the government of the Panama Canal. At least one of our national competitors in the use of the Panama Canal-Spain-has already taken steps to provide for the payment out of her national treasury of the Panama tolls on one of the Spanish lines which will use that canal. Furthermore, I can see no difference, save in form-provided the tolls for other nations are kept reasonable, as we have also covenanted to do whether the United States should make this appropriation out of her own Treasury to American vessels, by receiving the toll money from them first and repaying it to them, or by simply relieving them from the payment of tolls in the first place.

The gentleman from Minnesota, in his construction of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, gives great significance to the language in the preamble to that treatythat the contracting parties agreed that the canal should be built "without impairing the general principle of neutralization established in article 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty."

In fact, he reads them into the treaty and would make them a part of the treaty. To my mind that is indefensible. If we want to have an interpretation of those words, or if we want to see what effect they have or what scope and meaning they shall have given to them in the treaty, let us go to the treaty

itself. Now, there has been much said on the question of neutralization, and yet that is a term of wide significance which does not allow a definite meaning and which can not be applied to any specific treaty and made a universal rule of action. It has been violated time and time again in our treatment of the Panama Canal, and to accept those words as a justification for the position of the committee that we may not discriminate in favor of American ships in the use of the Panama Canal, to my mind is entirely untenable. Why, if we take the Clayton-Bulwer treaty as a basis, or if we undertake to interpret article 8 of that treaty and translate the spirit of that treaty into the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, we violate it in many respects. We violated it in our treaty with Panama, because we expressly provide that ships of the Government of Panama shall pass back and forth through the canal free of toll. It is nothing to say that her shipping in tonnage is negligible. We are contending for a principle, and if the contention of the gentlemen on the other side is correct, then we have violated the spirit of that treaty in granting this concession to Panama. If we grant it to Panama we can grant it to the various Governments of South America, but my contention is that we do not violate the treaty in that regard. Then, again, in the fortification of the canal we violate the principle of neutrality in its broad definition.

We are going further. We propose to place a military force on the canal. Is that simply to police the canal and maintain order on that 10-mile strip that has been conceded us by the Government of Panama? Is it possible that we are going to an annual expense of about $10,000,000 for fortifications simply for the purpose of policing the canal? Will it be necessary to expend a larger sum for that purpose after the canal is completed than now with many thousands of people engaged in the construction of the canal? Certainly not. There are those on this floor who have contended we could not fortify the canal; that it would be a violation of the treaty with Great Britain. At the same time, unchallenged by Great Britain, we are fortifying the canal. We are going ahead to place an army on the Canal Zone unchallenged by Great Britain, not simply for the purpose of policing the canal alone, but to protect it from hostile attack by any foreign nation. Not content with the declaration of Great Britain that it shall be regarded as neutral, not content with treaties that may be negotiated with foreign nations by which the neutrality of the canal may be recognized, we are preparing, by force, to protect our rights in the Canal Zone and to that great canal. But it is said if we grant discriminating duties to American ships we are violating the rule of equality. Now, just one moment on that question. We are spending $400,000,000 in the construction of that canal. Four per cent interest on that amount would be $16,000,000 a year. We propose to pay, according to the estimates of these gentlemen, from forty to fifty million dollars a year for its protection, maintenance, and operation, and yet notwithstanding that vast expenditure, to which no foreign nation has contributed one penny, notwithstanding the fact that the canal is being built on land to which the Government holds the absolute title, it is solemnly contended here that under the Hay-Pauncefote treaty we have no right to discriminate in favor of American ships by granting them the use of that canal at a less toll than we grant to foreign ships. The proposition is wholly untenable, to my mind. Gentlemen talk of the doctrine of equality. How could any foreign nation have the courage to make such a claim in view of these facts?

And yet that is the contention of these gentlemen, and they press it with great zeal. Why they should do it, I do not know, unless prompted by the considerations to which I have already referred.

I do not understand it. And the other doctrine-that when you levy a toll it does not affect the price of the commodity to the consumer; that it will be absorbed in the rate-is another specious contention. They would have us believe that this barrier is a blessing and that to remove it is a curse, and that it is a distinct disadvantage to the American people if we open that waterway and make it free to our shipping between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

I am quite willing, so far as I am concerned, that our shipping, both in the coastwise and foreign trade, may pay some amount of toll; that they shall contribute toward the maintenance and operation of the canal, but I do insist that when these tolls are framed they should distinctly give an advantage to our American merchant shipping. [Applause.]

But to return to the construction of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. To learn the terms of the treaty we should refer to the treaty itself. Article 2 provides that the canal may be constructed under the auspices of the Government of the