*
we ºweswas a *\ \\\e c oxycºV v SWVs.
C
--
\
（ 2 ） ;;;;,，，.，:.，，，.，：;
***############

|
º
[w
C
º
ſº
C
[]
C
C
U
º
tº º
O
C
C
C
Ö
ſ
O
i.
º
[.
º
C
º
ſº
C
g
ſº
C
C
C
sº
{}
C
[.
º
º
[.
G
ſº
º
º
H
TFIE GIFT OF
U.5. Sevvove
ſ
|
|

.# 3. i-, i. 6 i < ...
". . ; , , * } *... . . . "
:: * 't... . . . .
§
- * *
THE QUESTION OF THE CANAL TOLLs
*** -.
SPEECH
OF
HON. HENRY CABOT LODGE
OF MAss A CHUSHTT's
IN THE
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
APRIL 9, 1914
G
WASHINGTON
1914
38.939–13153

is PEECH
OF
HoN. HENRY CA BOT LOD GE.
Mr. LODGE. Mr. President, the desire to unite the Atlantic
and Pacific Oceans by an isthmian canal goes back almost to
the first discovery of the continent. It was the dream of the
early navigators, and from that day to this has never been ab-
sent from the minds of men. It is not necessary to trave
through the centuries the long history of the Canal project
which, with ever-increasing intensity, engaged the attention of
statesmen and of Governments and stimulated the ambition of
engineers. For my present purpose it is sufficient to set forth
very briefly those past transactions which have given rise to t.e
conditions and to the questions with which we must deal to-day.
The controversy which now divides opinion and gives birth to
contending arguments began with the Clayton-Bulwer treaty
of 1850. At that time we were engaged in a dispute with Great
Britain of a threatening character, and one which involved the
Canal routes. Great Britain had solemnly set up in Honduras a
local Indian whom, with a fine lack of humor, it invested with
the title of “The Mosquito IKing.” Over this ancient and re-
nowned monarchy it had established a protectorate, and with
this excuse for interference it proposed to take possession of
Certain points on the coast of Honduras and Nicaragua. As an
offset to this action on the part of Great Britain, Elijah Hise,
American chargé d'affaires at Guatemala, without instructions,
made a treaty with that country and also with Honduras and
Nicaragua, securing to the United States the largest rights in
that region for the construction of a canal. He had done this
before Mr. E. George Squier could supersede him in the capacity
of chargé d'affaires to Central America, and when Squier
reached his post Hise, with his treaties, was already on his way
to Washington. Squier, much disturbed, decided to ignore the
work of Hise and proceeded to make new treaties, ostensibly
according to instructions. He first made a treaty with Nic-
aragua which gave all the canal rights to the United States,
and he followed this up by making a treaty with Honduras
in order to defeat the schemes of Great Britain by securing the
cession or sale of Tigre Island. Like Hise, Squier exceeded his
instructions, but the treaties were none the less made and
sent to Washington. - :
Meantime Great Britain had seized Tigre Island. The situ-
ation therefore had become very threatening, for if the Squier
treaty went into the Senate ratification was reasonably certain,
and the dispute between the two countries would have then
become SO acute that there would have been great danger of
War. To avoid the perils of this situation the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty was hastily made. Upon the terms of that treaty, which
have of late years been so much discussed, it is not necessary
to enter in any detail. The essential proposition was that the
38.939–13153 - 3

4
Governments of the United States and Great Britain agreed
that neither One nor the other would ever Obtain or maintain
for itself any exclusive control over the Isthmian ship canal,
and they also agreed to invite every other State with which
they had friendly intercourse to enter into similar stipulations.
By the first agreement they tied their hands in regard to the
construction of the canal ; by the second the United States
abandoned its well-considered policy of excluding any Euro-
pean interference with American affairs and actually invited
such interference. The situation was further complicated by
Our agreeing through an exchange of diplomatic notes that the
treaty did not include British Honduras in its terms. The
Clayton-Bulwer treaty was a most unfortunate arrangement.
To remove an existing embarrassment it committed the United
States to obligations pregnant with future troubles. It was an
improvident treaty. It sacrificed the future to the present and
was guilty of that worst of diplomatic errors which consists in
escaping an immediate difficulty by disregarding contingencies
which might, and in this case were certain, to arise.
In due time the blunder of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty made
itself felt, although for many years nothing was heard of it.
Immediately after its ratification the contest over slavery was
renewed with ever-increasing intensity; then came the Civil
War; and after the war had ended the country was absorbed
in the settlement of the questions which were the legacy of the
great struggle to preserve the Union of the States. Gradually
these questions were disposed Of and the movement across the
continent, in which the American people were engaged, was com-
pleted. Railroads were built which united the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts. The interior frontiers, which had been divided
by wilderness and desert, occupied only by wandering Indian
tribes, had come together, and the American people began to
turn their attention to the great interests beyond their borders
which they had always possessed, but which had slumbered
during the lifetime of a generation. The desire to build an
Isthmian canal revived in full force and was accompanied with
a determination to undertake the work.
As we thus drew closer to the period of actual performance
we found ourselves confronted by the engagements of the Clay-
ton-Bulwer treaty. It was discovered with some surprise that
by the terms of that unfortunate and well-nigh forgotten agree-
ment we were not only hampered but actually fettered in any
attempt to build an isthmian canal upon conditions which we
were willing to accept. As this situation became better under-
stood, the country began to chafe under the treaty restrictions
which it had hardly realized and which seemed designed to
thwart its just aspirations for the solution of the great prob-
lem which for several generations had engaged the attention
of every far-seeing statesman. Restive under this restraint
the popular demand for the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty began to assume formidable and threatening proportions.
No responsible Government, however, can contemplate without
the gravest anxiety the abrogation of a treaty, except for causes
which would justify or even necessitate war. Only once in Our
history had we ever abrogated a treaty, and it was in the high-
est degree undesirable that, in a time of profound peace, and
when the War with Spain had but recently ended, we should
38.939—18153 --
5
proceed to take such violent action if by any honorable means
it could be avoided.
Dnder these conditions Mr. Hay, representing President MC-
Kinley, opened negotiations with the Government of Great
Britain for the removal of this obstacle to the construction of
the canal. The result was the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty.
• That treaty was intended to supersede the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty but, following too closely the terms of the Suez Canal
treaties, contained provisions which the Senate of the United
States very properly declined to accept. The gravest error, as
it seemed to the Senate, was a repetition of one of the mistakes
of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty in inviting the nations of Europe
to join with us in guaranteeing the neutrality of the Canal.
Such a provision was not only an abandonment of the Monroe
doctrine but, what was even worse, it disregarded entirely our
national policy of preventing the interference of Europe in
American affairs. The Senate struck out this provision. The
COmmittee reported, and the Senate adopted, an amendment to
the effect that the first five rules should not apply to any meas-
ures which the United States might take for its own defense
or the maintenance of public order. It also made another very
important change. The first Hay-Pauncefote treaty modified
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and to that extent superseded it.
How far it superseded it was disputed. It was argued here
that the Hay-Pauncefote treaty necessarily superseded entirely
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, but the Senate in order to leave
no doubt upon this point inserted the words “which is hereby
superseded.” Thus amended, the treaty was ratified by the
Senate and Sent to England. Lord Lansdowne's note refusing
to accept the Senate amendments showed that those who de-
sired a specific statement of the supersession of the Clayton-
Bulwer treaty were right in their contention that the Super-
session was not complete as the Hay-Pauncefote treaty origi-
nally stood. By this action of the British Government in de-
clining to accept the Senate amendments the treaty failed,
Negotiations were at once opened for a new treaty. The
draft was sent to London and the points in dispute contained
in this new draft were then settled by Mr. Choate and Lord
Lansdowne, who really made the second treaty, although it is
known by the names of the signers, Mr. Hay and Lord Paunce-
fote. The second Hay-Pauncefote treaty embodied in fact and
in principle all the Senate amendments. The provision for
inviting other nations to join in the guaranty of the neu-
trality of the canal had disappeared and so had the prohibi-
tion upon the erection of fortifications, while the preamble set
forth that the purpose of the treaty was to remove any obstacle
to the construction of the canal contained in the Clayton-
Bulwer treaty, reserving nothing from that treaty except the
“general priniciple of neutralization.” The treaty in its new
form was ratified by the Senate on December 16, 1901, by a
vote of 72 to 6. On February 21, 1902, ratifications were ex-
changed and the treaty became binding both upon Great Britain
and the United States. When this treaty was thus made and
ratified the canal route under consideration was that by way
of Nicaragua. It is not necessary here to trace the history of
the events, of the investigations or the discussions which led
to the substitution of the Panama route for that through
38.939–13153
6.
Nicaragua, because, although the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was
ratified when the Nicaragua route alone was in contemplation,
it applied by its terms to the construction of a canal at any
point on the Isthmus. -
Two years later a treaty with Panama was negotiated and
Was ratified by the Senate on the 23d of February, 1904, rati-
fications being exchanged with Panama three days later, on the
26th of February, 1904. It was under this treaty that the
United States obtained its title—and I may say a perfect title—
to the Canal Zone and its right to construct a Canal. The
Hay-Pauncefote treaty was between the United States and
. Great Britain alone, its main purpose being the supersession
Of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, so as to remove that obstacle
to the construction of an isthmian canal. It, of course, gave
the United States neither title nor opportunity to build a
Canal ; it merely removed an obstruction. The treaty with
Talla IIIa, upſull whilell our title rests, and without Which
the Canal could not have been built, has been too much over-
looked in these debates. In addition to the payment of
$10,000,000 is the price or compensation for the rights, powers,
and privileges granted by the Republic of Panama to the United
States, the treaty also secured to the Government of the
Republic of Panama the right to “transport over the canal its
vessels and its tróops and munitions of war in such vessels at
all times without paying charges of any kind.” It is not clear
from this language that the Government of the United States
made any grant to Panama of the right to pass its merchant ves-
Sels through the canal without payment of tolls, for article 19
applies apparently only to the vessels of the Republic—that is,
naval vessels and those carrying troops and munitions Of War.
This grant, whether limited or not, was part of the compensa-
tion for the title obtained by the United States, without which
the Canal could not have been built, and does not therefore sus-
tain the arguments in support of the exemption Of the merchant
vessels of the United States from tolls, because unless we had
secured our title and building rights from Panama there would
have been no canal. No nation could and no nation did object
to the consideration paid to Panama for Our rights and title
On the Canal Zone. It further is to be noted that in the treaty
with Panama the United States was given the right to establish
fortifications, a right which could be conferred or withheld by
Panama alone. As I have already stated, there was a prohi-
bition of the establishment of fortifications in the first Hay-
Pauncefote treaty which was omitted in the Second treaty, and
thereföre no objection can be raised to the establishment of
fortifications by the United States, as that right is expressly
given it by the only authority which had the power to grant
it—the Republic of Panama. Nothing in the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty as it stands can possibly affect this explicit grant from
the Republic of Panama.
The most important feature, however, of the treaty with
Panama, so far as the present discussion is concerned, is article
18, which says: - -
The canal, when constructed, and the entrance thereto shall be neu-
tral in perpetuity, and shall be opened upon the terms provided for by
section 1 of article 3 of, and in conformity with, all the stipulations
of the treaty entered into by the Governments of the United States and
Great Britain on November 18, 1901.
38989–13153
7
Section 1 of article 3 of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of 1901
provided as follows: - *
The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of
war of all nations which shall agree to observe these rules, on termis
of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any
nation So agreeing, or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the condi-
tions or charges of traffic, or otherwise. Such conditions and charges
of traffic shall be just and equitable. -
Thus it will be seen that by article 18 of the Panama
treaty the section just quoted from the Hay-Pauncefote treaty
was made a part Of the Panama treaty and must be so regarded.
The Hay-Pauncefote treaty, as has just been said, concerned
Only Great Britain and the United States and grew out of pre-
vious arrangements between those two powers, but the treaty
with the Republic of Panama upon which the title of the United
States and its right to build the canal rest affected in its terms
all nations using the canal, and was notice to the world not
only of the title of the United States to build the canal, but of
the terms upon which that canal should be built and used, so
far as it concerned the vessels and commerce of all other na-
tions. In this way section 1 of article 3 of the Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty was raised to a position where it touched all nations,
and therefore gave to all nations the right to ask that they
should be treated in accordance with the terms of the treaty
by which the United States obtained right and title to the con-
struction of the canal. In other words, under the Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty we are responsible to Great Britain alone for the
fulfillment of the terms of the treaty ; but in the treaty with
Panama, by virtue of which we hold our title to the Canal Zone,
as well as the right to build the canal, we extend our responsi-
bility for the due observance of the rules laid down to all
nations using the Canal. -
By the Panama Canal act, approved August 24, 1912, it was
provided in section 5 that no tolls should be levied upon ves-
Sels passing through the canal which were engaged in the
coastwise trade of the United States. This is the provisión
which has given rise to the present controversy, and in COI)-
sidering it the first step is to determine exactly what this clºuse
accomplished. This is not altogether easy to do, because the
language which grants the exemption to certain vessels of the
United States is loose in definition. Under our navigation
laws there are in reality three classes of vessels, if we classify
them according to the trade in which they are engaged. In
the first place there are the vessels of American registry en-
gaged exclusively in foreign trade, which clearly do not come
Within the exemption. Then, there are vessels which by en-
rollment and license are engaged in the Coastwise trade and
can not touch or trade at any foreign port in the course of
their coastwise voyage without forfeiting their enrollment and
license as well as the vessel itself. Vessels of this class come
Clearly within the exemption. But there is yet a third class
COInSisting of vessels enrolled and licensed for coastwise trade
which also take out and sail under a register permitting them
to touch for commercial purposes at foreign ports in the course
Of a coastwise voyage, and of vessels holding an American
register for foreign trade which also engage in coastwise trade;
that is, a vessel engaged under register in foreign trade or a
vessel enrolled and licensed for the coastwise trade and holding
38.939–18153
º
º
i
i
8
:
º
:
i
also a register for foreign trade, enabling it to touch for com-
mercial purposes at a foreign port in the course of a coastwise
voyage, could sail under the register from New York to
New Orleans and on the way would have the right to touch
for commercial purposes at, let us say, Jamaica or Cuba. It
is not at all clear whether vessels of this third class come
within the exemption or not. The fact that Congress refused
to insert the word “exclusively ’’ after the word “engaged ” in
the exemption clause just quoted would seem to indicate that
it was the intention of Congress to include in the exemption not
only vessels engaged in the coastwise trade and holding nothing
but enrollment and license, but licensed vessels or vessels in .
foreign trade which have a register allowing them to touch
and trade at foreign ports in the course of their coastwise voy-
age. To those who think that there is a distinction to be
drawn for the purpose of exellupliuli ſroril tolls between vessels
engaged in the coastwise trade and those engaged in foreign
trade, this question of the vessels which may be said to have
both rights is of importance. If the view expressed by ex-
President Roosevelt, that we have the right, to exempt our
Coastwise vessels, because to do SO involves no discrimination
against the vessels of other countries, be accepted it is clear
that a coastwise vessel with the right to touch and trade at
foreign ports during its coastwise voyage would be excluded,
because by carrying cargo and passengers from foreign ports
they would come in immediate competition with the vessels of
Other nations.
In Olsen v. Smith (195 U. S., p. 332), which has been fre-
quently cited during the debate on the tolls, the court took sub-
stantially the same ground in reference to the general favored-
nation clause as that taken by ex-President Roosevelt in regard
to canal tolls. The court held that a State law exempting coast-
Wise vessels from pilotage charges was not in conflict with our
£reaties, because, in the language of Mr. Justice White, such ex-
emption “did not operate to produce a discrimination against
British vessels.” The test of the validity of the exemption, in
the opinion of the court, lay in the existence or nonexistence of
discrimination against vessels of other nations. Applying this
test of discrimination it is clear that those who draw a dis-
tinction between coastwise vessels and vessels engaged in for-
eign trade must hold that neither those engaged exclusively in
foreign trade nor those engaged in both coastwise and foreign
trade can be exempt from tolls under the terms of the Hay-
Pauncefote treaty. It seems clear to me also that if enrolled
and licensed vessels can be employed in Such a way as to com-
ete with the vessels of foreign nations then they also would
all outside the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in the
pilotage case and by ex-President Roosevelt with reference to
exemption from tolls under the Hay-Pauncefote and Panama
treaties. The only point where the distinction between the dif-
ferent classes of vessels can be made is found in the provision
which says that there shall be no discrimination against any
nation; that is, even enrolled and licensed vessels of the coast-
wise trade can be distinguished as Such Only On the ground that
their exemption from tolls does not involve discrimination
against the vessels of other nations. It is not the character of
the trade in which they are engaged which would make the
exemption legitimate, but the fact that by the exemption there
38.939–13153
-
9
is no discrimination against the vessels of other nations. But
if we consider the conditions carefully it will be seen that it is
just as possible to produce a discrimination against the Ves-
sels of another nation by enrolled and licensed vessels engaged
exclusively in the coastwise trade as by vessels engaged in for-
eign trade. A vessel, for example, going by way of the Canal
from Portland, Me., to Portland, Oreg., may easily be able, if
exempted from the tolls, to take freight shipped by rail from
certain interior points in Canada at a lower rate than Cana-
dian or British or German vessels going from Quebec to Van-
couver, and this would at once constitute a discrimination.
A foreign vessel, again, may shift cargo at Colon to an Ameri-
can enrolled and licensed vessel and thereby escape tolls and
discriminate against another foreign vessel going direct, let uS
say, from Hamburg to San Francisco. To repeat the same idea
in other words, the mere fact that a vessel is engaged exclu-
sively in coastwise trade does not necessarily bring it within
the distinction afforded by the language of the treaty in regard
to discrimination.
I have Called attention to the confusion which arises from the
lack Of an exact definition of vessels exempted in the language
of the Canal act So that if the exemption is to remain it may be
amended in Such a way as to leave no doubt as to the vessels
which it is intended to exempt. I do not advance this point
nor that which relates to the distinction among vessels based on
the discrimination provision as having any bearing upon my
o ..."m personal attitude, because I do not think that any distinc-
tion can be drawn, under the language of the treaty, between
Vessels engaged in the coastwise trade, in the foreign trade, Ol'
in both. The treaty says “vessels of commerce and of war of
all nations,” and under those words, aside from the question of
discrimination which I have just discussed, I can see no possi-
bility of distinguishing a vessel of commerce engaged in the
COastwise trade from a vessel Of Commerce engaged in the for-
eign trade. To me personally it is wholly indifferent whether
these distinctions are accepted or rejected because, holding as
I do that the phrase “all vessels Of connnnerce " covers all vessels
of commerce of every country, whether engaged in the coastwise
or foreign trade, I am of opinion that under the terms of the
treaty we have a legal right to exempt our Own vessels no
matter what trade they are engaged in. In my view, if we ad-
mit that we have not the legal right to exempt from tolls ves-
Sels engaged in foreign trade we have no right to exempt or re-
fuse to collect tolls from vessels of the United States engaged
in any trade. I think, however, as I have just said, that we
have the legal right to exempt or refuse to collect tolls from all
vessels of the United States. I am speaking here only of ves-
Sels Of connnnerce. VeSSels Of War Of the United States of course
pass through the Canal without tolls Jecause that is one of our
rights for the protection of the canal. This is fully recognized
by Sir Edward Grey when he says that the United States being
practical sovereign of the canal, the right of the United States
to exercise belligerent rights for the protection of the canal is
thot questioned. i
In support of this interpretation of the treaty as to vessels
of commerce many elaborate arguments have been made in the
past, and no doubt many more will be made in the course of
38.939–13153
:
10
the present debate by those who favor the exercise of the right
of exempting vessels of the United States from the payment of
tolls. I shall therefore endeavor to state my own reasons for
holding this view as briefly as possible. I was a member of
the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate which reported
the amendments to the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty. I had
some part in framing those amendments, and, owing to the
death of Senator Davis, I was in charge of the treaty when, as
amended, it was ratified by the Senate. It so chanced that I
was in London when Mr. Choate and Lord Lansdowne were con-
cluding the negotiations which resulted in the second Hay-
Pauncefote treaty, and I was familiar with the discussions
which then took place. When the second Hay-Pauncefote treaty
was sent to the Senate it devolved upon me to report the treaty
to the Senate. I mention these facts merely to show that I was
in a position to be familiar with all fine proceedings which ulti-
mately resulted in the ratification of the Second Hay-Pauncefote
treaty. I took the view then that under the terms of the treaty
of November 18, 1901, the United States was at liberty to ex-
empt its own vessels of commerce from the payment of tolls if
it saw fit to do so, and I voted against the Bard amendment,
which made this right explicit, because I thought it needless.
Let me digress for a moment to say that of the 70 Senators
who actually voted upon the Bard annendment, only 11 are Mem-
bers of the Senate now—3 Democrats and 8 Republicans. The
votes in favor of the Bard amendment numbered 27 ; 8 Re-
publicans and 19 Democrats, who showed by their votes that
they wished to be able to subsidize American coastwise vessels
passing through the canal and that they thought that the treaty
as it stood did not assure to them this opportunity. The opin-
ion which I formed in 1901 as to our rights under the treaty I
have never changed; I hold it now, as I did 13 years ago, and
my reasons for this opinion, briefly stated, are as follows:
The second Hay-Pauncefote treaty not only authorizes the
United States, so far as Great Britain is concerned, to build a
canal through the territory of some other power, but adds a
clause, which did not exist in the rejected treaty, to the effect
that no change of territorial sovereignty of the country Or Coun-
tries traversed by the canal shall affect the obligations of the
parties to the treaty, which seems to assent in advance to the
acquisition by the United States of the territory required for
the canal. Subsequently the United States acquired the Canal
Zone, and under the clause which I have just cited it Will be
seen that the terms of the second Hay-Pauncefote treaty apply
to a canal constructed by a State on territory of its OWn Ob-
tained for that purpose. The second Hay-Pauncefote treaty
also omitted article 3 of the rejected treaty, which provided
that other powers were to have notice of the treaty and be in-
vited to adhere to it, which clause, as I have already pointed
out, was one of the principal objections of the Senate to the first
draft.
It is clear, therefore, that the United States has rightfully,
and in accordance with the terms of the treaty, built the canal
through territory which is its own for canal purposes, although
the ultimate sovereignty remains with the Republic of Panama,
and the treaty accords to the United States all rights incident
to building the canal. It is also clear that in undertaking the
canal on these terms the United States did so with the purpose
t 38.939–13153
11
of excluding all foreign control beyond the stipulation to pre-
serve the “general principle '' of neutralization and for equality
of terms to all users of the Canal. Such being the case, it is
necessary next to inquire what there is in the language of the
treaty to justify the assertion that the United States is pre-
vented by this state of facts from allowing the use of the canal
by its own vessels or by the vessels of its merchant marine on
any terms which it chooses to establish. Those who deny the
right of the United States to exempt its own vessels rest their
case on the language of the first rule of article 3, which de-
Clares that— -
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—
and more particularly upon the proposition that the words “all
nations' must include the United States. I freely admit that
this is a fairly arguable point, but it does not seem to me that
the words “all nations” in this connection necessarily include
the United States: My reasons for taking this view are that
this article in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty is a contract with
Great Britain, and as embodied in the treaty with Panama be-
comes a contract with all the world, by which the builder and
owner of the canal fixes the terms upon which it grants the use
of the canal to all other nations. As Mr. Olney in his argu-
ment has pointed Out, the treaty in this respect was needed for
that purpose only, because it was not necessary to fix the terms
upon which the United States and its citizens should use the
canal, inasmuch as its use by the citizens of the United States,
without tolls or otherwise, as the United States might deter-
mine, was a necessary incident of the ownership of the canal.
I also agree with Mr. Olney in the proposition, which he states
in a manner beyond improvement, “that it can not reasonably
be argued that in fixing the terms for the use of its canal by
customers the TInited States looked upon itself as one of the
customers.” -- ~~, 1struing the language of the first rule, upon
which the claim that the United States is to be regarded as one
of its own customers rests, it must be remembered that there
are five other rules. A mere reading of these five other rules
shows at once that they do not apply to the United States but
to the citizens Or subjects Of Other nations who shall use the
canal. It seems to me difficult, as a general proposition, to
argue that five of these six rules adopted by the United States.
for the use of the canal should not apply to the United States
and that one and One Only should so apply. It seems to me also
that these rules must all be construed together. Admitting, as
I think it must be admitted, that the canal passes through a
zone which, for canal purposes, practically belongs to the United
States, it would Seem that the general rule of international law
in regard to such cases applies. That rule, as laid down by
Moore in his third Volume, page 268, citing the case of The
Avon (18 International Review Record, 165), is as follows:
While a natural thoroughfare, although wholly within the dominion.
of a Government, may be passed by commercial ships, of right, yet the
nation which constructs an artificial channel may annex such condi-
tions to its use as it pleases. - w
It will be obsérved that the special rules for the Panam
Canal are laid down in article 3 of the treaty as the “basis
Of the neutralization of such ship canal ‘’ and the preamble of
the treaty refers to the maintenance of the “general principle
38.939–13153 - - º
12
of neutralization ” established in article 8 of the Clayton-
Bulwer treaty. The use of the word “neutralization ” in this
Connection is somewhat confusing, for under strict definition
neutrality and neutralization can arise only in connection with
War or preparations implying war. Yet article 8 of the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty, to which reference is made in the pre-
amble, has no reference to war or the conditions of war, but
relates only to charges and conditions of traffic. The guar-
anty of neutrality involving protection from interruption, seiz-
ure, or unjust confiscation occurs in article 5 of the Clayton-
Bulwer treaty, to which no reference is made in the preamble
Of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. Strictly speaking, it seems as if
neutrality could apply only to the conditions involved in war
Or in preparations for war. Moore, in volume 3, page 267, says:
The term neutralization has come to be used in a sense less strict
than that indicated by the author, so as to include an arrangement
Whereby protection is sought to be guaranteed against hostile attack
or hostile interruption, while the same freedom of use is sought to be
assured in War as in peace. No doubt, however, the leading motive
of agreements of neutralization is to secure exemption from hostile
attack and a corresponding prohibition of distinctive hostile use.
Mr. Moore then cites the neutrality of the Free Town of
Cracow, the neutralization of the Black Sea, of Luxemburg, the
IOInian Islands, the Lower Danube, and the Straits of Magellan,
and in all these cases of neutralization, war, or the conditions
Of War, are dealt with and fortifications are forbidden. Of the
six rules of article 3 in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty the last
five all relate to war, or the conditions of war, and are properly
defined as a basis of neutralization. On the other hand, and
in this connection it must be remembered that the United
States not only insisted on the omission of the prohibition
against fortifications embodied in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty
but in the treaty with Panama asserted explicitly the right
to fortify. In this way the United States made it apparent
that neutralization of the canal in the strict sense was limited,
and that the prohibition against fortifications, which is found
in other cases of neutralization cited by Moore, was here ex-
pressly excepted. This action on the part of the United States
with the explicit provision in regard to the right to fortify in
the treaty with Panama is an assertion on the part of the
United States of its absolute control in time of war of the
canal passing through the territory which for cana] purposes
is its own. Having thus limited neutralization in regard to
War and a SSerted COntrol in that direction, it seems to me
difficult to argue that “neutralization ” as used in article 3
can be held to mean, however loosely we define the word, to
debar the United States from treating its own vessels differ-
ently from those of other nations when it has distinctly lim-
ited neutralization in the direction where neutralization un-
doubtedly and under the narrowest interpretation must apply.
In other words, I fail to see how the word “neutralization,”
loosely and improparly applied, as I think it is, to the use of
the canal in time of peace, can be held to require equality of
tolls when it is limited in its own proper and legitimate domain
in time of war by the explicitly granted right in the treaty
of Panama to build fortifications. e
There can be no doubt as a general proposition that the
United States, having built the canal in territory which is
its own for canal purposes, can determine flhe conditions for
38.939–13153
13
the use of the canal except so far as it has limited that right
by contract with other nations. The limitations of that right,
if they exist, must be found in article 3 of the second Hay-
Pauncefote treaty and in the treaty with Panama, which em-
bodies the rules of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. Without the
limitations of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty it is admitted that the
right of the United States to fix tolls or to control the canal
in any way would be absolute. Do the words “all nations ‘’
limit this inherent right? They can only do so if they are
cladr and express, for in no other way can a State part with
its rights of sovereignty or property. Otherwise, as Mr. Olney
points out, “the presumption is against the State’s intention
to part with or abridge its jurisdictional or property rights.”
Therefore the term “all nations,” which in this COInnection is
not clear and express, should be Construed as excepting the
|United States, because that is the COnStruction least restrictive
of the normal rights and powers of the United States. On the
face of the treaty it is not apparent that the United States
regarded itself as one of its own customers, and it seems un-
reasonable to suppose, as I have already said, that when five
out of six of the treaty rules do not apply to the United States
the sixth was intended to apply.
I might, of course, enlarge very much the propositions which
I have briefly set forth and upon which I rest my opinion that
the United States has the right to exempt its vessels from tolls
in passing through the calmal or to make tolls for its Own VeS-
Sels lower than the tolls upon vessels of other nations. But
for my purpose to-day it is sufficient to have explained as con
cisely as possible why I hold the view that under a reasonable
interpretation the United States has the right to exempt its
own vessels from tolls, provided that it makes the tolls on
vessels of all other nations equal, and why I think the phrase
sº nations ° does not in this connection include the United
tates.
At this point, however, I part company with those who insist
that because we have the right to refuse to collect tolls from
Or to exempt our own vessels from the payment of tolls we
therefore should exercise that right. It does not follow that
because we have the right to do something we must thereföre
exercise it. I have a right to build high walls on each side of
my property, assuming that I own a house in a block. The only
effect of the exercise of this right would be to deprive my
neighbors Of light, and although I possess the right I do not
exercise it simply for the purpose of annoying my neighbors.
As the Senator from Mississippi said the other day, citing
Burke :
If I am the owner of sheep, I have the right to shear my sheep in
vinter, but I do not do it merely because I have the right.
The existence of a right and its exercise are two very dif-
ferent things. Either as individuals or as a nation we may pos-
SeSS Certain undoubted rights, and yet it might well be that it
WOuld be the height of unwisdom to exercise them. In this case
it appears to me that it would be most unwise to exercise the
right of exempting our own vessels from tolls simply because
We have the right to do so. We must be convinced not only
that we have the right but that it is necessary and expedient
to exercise it before we put the right in force. The reasons
38.939—18153 -
14
against our exercising this right, which I believe we possess,
are to me COnclusive, as I Said in the debate when We were
•COnsidering the canal act. I wish now to restate those reasons
somewhat more fully and more carefully than I did at that time.
In the first place there is a wide and honest division of Opin-
ion as to the correct interpretation of the first rule of article
3 of the treaty and as to the words “all nations.” The opin-
ion of foreign nations, with hardly an exception, and that only
in the case of some individual, is against the interpretation
which I believe to be correct. In the United States opinion is
divided and absence of unanimity in the interpretation of the
treaty on our side is not to be overlooked in considering what
action we shall take. If there were no division of opinion in
the United States, or among those in the United States qualified
‘to speak with authority, there would be a much stronger reason
for insisting upon our own interpretation and upon the pro-
priety of deciding the question in our own favor than there can
-be when American opinion is so radically divided. Ex-President
Roosevelt, within certain limitations, and ex-President Taft are
both of the Opinion that we have the right to exempt our coast-
wise vessels from the payment of tolls on passing through the
canal. President Wilson, on the other hand, has just told us
and told the world that he regards the exemption Of Our coast-
wise vessels from tolls as a plain violation of the treaty. Mr.
Olney, as I have already shown, agrees with the interpretation
which I give to the clause, while the senior Senator from New
York holds an Opposite Opinion, and Mr. ROOT and Mr. Olney
have both been Secretaries of State and are both lawyers of
wide learning, great acumen, and the highest ability. These
examples sufficiently illustrate the deep and sincere division of
opinion upon this point existing in the United States. With
such a division of opinion among ourselves I am not willing to
expose the United States to the imputation of bad faith among
all other nations by insisting on deciding a doubtful point,
upon which we ourselves are not agreed, in our own favor simply
because we have the power to do SO. In the larger considera-
tion of Our position among the nations Of the earth I think it
would be a great mistake, with a divided public opinion at
home, to insist upon our own interpretation of the treaty, an
interpretation which the rest of the world does not accept.
I now come to a second point which appears to me of great
importance. The violation of the plain terms of the treaty,
to use President Wilson's language, if it exists by the exemption
of our own ships from the payment of tolls, arises and can arise
solely from the method by which this exemption is secured.
To exempt our coastwise vessels from the payment of tolls is to
grant them a subsidy. The Senator from Oklahoma asserted
this proposition in his ‘speech the other day, and I do not see .
how it can possibly be controverted. If we relieve our coast-
wise vessels passing through the canal from tolls, We Subsidize
them to that extent. The subsidy is in the relief from tolls,
not in the manner in which the relief is granted. This does not
disturb me personally at all, because I believe in the policy Of
subsidies to our merchant marine, and I am sure that We Shall
never again have any merchant marine until we give to Our
vessels engaged in foreign trade the same aid which is extended
by all other nations to their vessels. The vessels in the for-
-eign trade are those which need a subsidy, if any is to be given
38989—13153 - . . .
15
in any form, for they are open to foreign competition, and not
the vessels engaged in the coastwise trade, which, as against
the rest of the world, is a monopoly established by law. But
the exemption from tolls, I repeat, is in any form a subsidy. I
can understand perfectly the position of those who vote against
the toll exemption because they are against Subsidies of any kind—
that is a logical position, although it is not mille—but I can
not quite comprehend the position of those who are against Sub-
sidies as a general principle, but who are consumed with a
burning desire to confer it in this instance and in this particu-
lar manner. Aid to Our shipping engaged in traffic between the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts plays a great part in the arguments of
those who oppose the repeal of the toll exemption. It has been
Very pleasing to me, as well as a beautiful spectacle for the
disinterested observer, to note the pathetic eloquence of many
distinguished persons in behalf of aid to American Shipping,
after they have for years thwarted every attempt effectively to
help or build up the American merchant marine. Most earnest
pleas have also been made in behalf of the toll exemption be-
Cause that exemption would be more certain to Cripple the
transcontinental railroads than any other device. I recognize
the importance of this point. Legislation of late years has pro-
ceeded largely, and in some cases entirely, upon the desire to
injure someone. The principle of destruction has been of late
more powerful in our lawmaking than that of construction.
The hope of conferring benefits has been secondary to the
eagerness to inflict punishment and loss, without regard to
guilt Or innocence, upon all who suffer from the odium due to
SUICC eSS. 22'
In this particular case, as the railroads are explicitly pre-
Vented from owning ships passing through the canal, I do not
think that either the collection of tolls or their removal would
have any effect. The transcontinental roads, with their haul
Of 3,000 miles, could by no possibility compete with the rates
for water-borne freight. There is one case where the toll ex-
emption might have a decided effect, although I am not familiar
enough with the statistics to assert this with certainty. The
Tehuantepec Railroad, which crosses Mexico at the narrowest
point, from Puerto-Mexico, to Salina Cruz, belongs under a
government concession to Lord Cowdray, the head of the Pear-
son interests in Mexico. This concession runs for 51 years,
and LOrd Cowdray also controls the docks and Other terminal
facilities at the ports at both ends of the line. The 40,000
acres Of Oil lands in which Lord Cowdray and Sir Lionel Carden
are interested lie, if I am correctly informed, near the eastern
terminus of the railroad. Lord Cowdray has a contract with
the Hawaiian Steamship Co. by which all their freight passes
over the Tehuantepec Railroad and one-third of the freight
charges from Hawaii to New York is paid to the railroad.
The Steamship company reserves the right to abandon the con-
tract On the Opening of the Panama Canal. It is said, I know
not how correctly, that the toll exemption would enable the
Hawaiian Steamship Co. to send its ships through the canal
and thus Save the large payment now made to Lord Cowdray and
the Other Owners of the Tehuantepec Railroad. HOW persuasive
these facts would be in dealing with this question I do not
know. The zeal against trusts and Syndicates which has been
So potent of late years in the United States has been confined
38939—13153. -
16
to domestic combinations. There has never been in evidence
any desire to protect American industries against foreign trusts
and syndicates which export their products to this country
and there has been an absolute refusal on the part of Congress
to do anything to aid American ships against the foreign ship-
ping syndicates which control freight rates both on the Atlantic
and Pacific. But even assuming that in this particular case we
should be willing to aid American shipping against an English
and Mexican railroad combination, the result can be easily
achieved without exempting CoastWise Vessels from tolls in the
precise method adopted in the canal act. As I have just pointed
out, to relieve our ships from the payment of tolls is a subsidy,
and the manner in which that relief is given has absolutely no
bearing upon the character of the aid afforded. No matter how
that relief from the payment of tolls is given it is still a sub-
sidy. The only question is whether we shall give it in one way
or another. Qur right to give the relief from tolls as now
provided in the canal act is contested as a violation of treaty
obligations. Our right to give this relief by the Government’s
payment of the tolls for American ships is wholly uncontested.
If the American ships pay the tolls and the United States hands
back the 'amount of the tolls, no one denies that this procedure
is wholly legitimate under the provisions of the treaty.
Almost all the nations largely engaged in commerce now pay
either indirectly or specifically the tolls of their vessels passing
through the Suez Canal. They will undoubtedly do the same
thing for their vessels which pass through the Panama Canal.
If we choose to pay the tolls of our vessels passing through
the Panama Canal, it is admitted by England and by all other
nations that we have the right to do so. So long as the tolls
are paid no one has the right to inquire the Source of the pay-
ment. If we give our ships the money to pay the tolls and the
ships then return that money to the Treasury of the United
States, there is no greater charge upon the Treasury than if
the vessels go through without the payment of tolls. The Vital
difference is that one method of relieving our ships from the
payment of tolls is admitted by everyone to be legitimate, while
the legality of the other method is disputed. When in the de-
bate on the canal act I suggested this solution of the ques-
tion, I was met with two objections—one that the method I
proposed involved a subsidy, which was contrary to the always
immutable principles of the Democratic Party, but which I
have shown to have no basis, because the exemption from tolls
is a subsidy, no matter how it is brought about. The other
objection was that the arrangement I proposed was a mere
evasion. This is equally baseless as an objection, for a rec-
ognized method of obtaining a certain result can Inot be an
evasion of the terms of any agreement. If I have a right Of
way across land owned by a neighbor, it would be trespass to
cross the land at any point except that fixed by the defined
right of way. To use the right of way is clearly not an evasion,
and there would be no intelligent purpose in insisting On
crossing the land at a point where the act would constitute a
trespass. If the real purpose of our legislation is to benefit
our shipping and insure an invincible competition to the rail-
roads, whether foreign or domestic, the payment of the tolls
on American vessels by the Government of the United States
is our right of way through the treaty and is admitted to be
38.93%—13153 -
17
so by all the nations of the earth. The steadfast refusal to
adopt this obvious and undisputed method of aiding American
shipping in competition with the transcontinental roads raises
the inevitable inference that the primary object of insisting
upon a naked toll exemption is not the benefit of American
shipping and the reduction of water rates, but to achieve this
result in a manner which shall demonstrate Our disregard for
the opinions and rights of foreign nations, and more particu-
larly for the rights of England under the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty. Personally, I think it most unwise to insist upon ex-
empting our vessels from tolls with the single object of flouting
the opinion and disregarding the rights of other nations as
those nations understand their ‘rights. -
I now come to another point which weighs very strongly with
me in deciding against giving relief from tolls to American
ships by the method employed by the canal act. Whatever
our opinion may be as to the strict legal interpretation of the
rules governing the matter of tolls imposed upon vessels pass-
ing through the canal, we can not and We ought not to overlook
the understanding of those who negotiated the treaty as to the
intent and effect Of the rules which they framed. As to the
nature of the understanding we have direct testimony. Mr.
Henry White, who first laid before the British Government the
desire of the United States to enter into negotiations for the
supersession of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, has stated that Lord
Salisbury expressed to him the entire willingness of England
to remove all obstacles which the Clayton-Bulwer treaty put
in the way of the construction of the canal, and desired only
to maintain equality of tolls imposed upon all vessels, including
those of the United States. Mr. Choate, who, as I have said,
completed the negotiations which resulted in the second Hay-
Pauncefote treaty, has publicly stated that the understanding
at that time of both parties was the same as that given by Mr.
White. The only other American Concerned in the actual nego-
tiation of the treaty was the late Mr. Hay, at that time Secre-
tary of State. I know that Mr. Hay’s View was the same as
that of Mr. Choate and Mr. White. It is therefore clear on the
testimony Of Our three negotiators that the negotiations as
they were begun and as they were completed in the second
Hay-Pauncefote treaty proceeded on the clear understanding
that there was to be no discrimination in the tolls imposed as
between the vessels of any nation, including the vessels of the
|United. States. -
I am well aware that an understanding of this sort, although
an aid perhaps to interpretation, does not bind legally. But
there is such a thing as honor in agreements and transactions
between nations as there is in agreements between individuals.
To the individual man his personal honor appears in a clearer
light than national honor to the man acting in a representative
Capacity. It is regrettable that this should ever be so, but I
think there can be no doubt that at certain times it is the fact.
The psychology of the crowd is a very different thing from
the psychology of the individual men who compose the crowd.
A large mass of human beings excited by passion will often
act in a manner which no single member of the mass would
Countenance if he acted alone. In the Same way representa- -
tives of a nation will sometimes act in the settlement of a
national question in a manner which they would not think of
38.939—13153—2 -
º
18
adopting in the affairs of private life. Again and again I have
Seen Senators in this Senate yield on what they supposed was
an agreement, because their colleagues with whom the agree-
ment Was made had not understood it in the same sense. We
have all had similar experiences in our own lives, and we
have all tried to be faithful to our standard of personal honor.
An honorable man will not insist upon an agreement with a
friend, or even with a foe, if he is satisfied that the agreement
rests upon or was obtained through a misunderstanding. Hon-
est men, as a rule, are sensitive on points of that kind when
they themselves are concerned. We ought always to remember
that the honor of our Nation is just as precious as our own
perSOnal honor and refuse to do in our corporate what we should
Shrink from doing in our individual capacity. If there was no
doubt, no room for question, that under the terms of these
treaties We had no right to exempt by law our vessels from the
payment of canal tolls I believe we should unhesitatingly main-
Laill Llle Obligations of the treaties and live up to our bad
bargain, if we thought it a bad bargain, no matter how dis-
agreeable it was for us to do so. Where there is a doubt as
to the legal interpretation of terms, where opinion in our own
Country is divided upon that interpretation, it seems to me that
the understanding upon which our negotiators framed the treaty
Should have great weight in our action. I am not willing for
One, although I am convinced as to our legal right, to disregard
the understanding upon which the treaties were made and in-
sist upon my personal interpretation of the legal effect of the
language employed. As a rule of conduct I must apply to my
country the same rule which I should try to apply to my own
action in the case of a private agreement with a friend.
In his argument a year ago in Support of our legal right to
exempt our vessels from the payment of tolls Mr. Olney gave
as his conclusion that the question should be submitted to arbi-
tration, as it was of a nature to which arbitration was pecu-
liarly applicable. This would be a most honorable and fitting
solution. Unfortunately, it is generally believed that it would
not be possible to obtain the requisite two-thirds' majority of
the Senate in favor of the Special agreement which would be
necessary to Secure the submission of this question of the tolls
to an arbitral tribunal. To have arbitration in this case refused
would be most unhappy, for as all nations regard this question
as clearly within the scope of our general arbitration treaties
we should be thought to have disregarded the arbitration as
well as the canal treaties, our honor and good faith would be
impugned, and we should be looked upon as mere hypocrites in
proclaiming, as we have done for many years, our championship
of the cause of arbitration and peace.
Whether we shall insist upon giving to our ships two or three
millions of dollars in a disputed way is, in my conception, a very
Small question compared to the larger issues which are here
involved. When the year 1909 opened, the United States occu-
pied a higher and stronger position among the nations of the
earth than at any period in our history. Never before had we.
possessed such an influence in international affairs, and that in-
fluence had been used beneficently and for the world’s peace in
two conspicuous instances—at Portsmouth and at Algeciras.
Never before had our relations with the various States of Cen-
tral and South America been SO good. It seemel as if the
38.939—13153 . . .
19
shadow of suspicion which, owing to our dominant and at times
domineering power, had darkened and chilled our relations with
the people of Latin America had at last been lifted. A World
power we had been for many long years, but we had at last be-
come a world power in the finer sense, a power Whose active par-
ticipation and beneficent influence were recognized and desired
by other nations in those great questions which concerned the
welfare and happiness of all mankind. . This great position and
this commanding influence have been largely lost. I have no
desire to open up old questions or to trace the Steps by Which
this result has come to pass, still less to indulge in Criticism Or
censure upon anyone. I merely note the fact. I am not in the
councils of the President of the United States, but I believe that
during the past year the present position of the United States
in its foreign relations has become very apparent to him, as it
has to other responsible and reflecting men, and With this ap-
preciation of our present position has come the earnest Wish to
retrace some of Our steps, at least, and to regain, So far a S
possible, the high plane which we formerly occupied. It would
be an obvious impropriety to point out the specific conditions
of our present relations with the various nations, both in the
Old World and the New ; it is enough to note the fact that We
are regarded by other nations with distrust and in Some cases
with dislike. Rightly or wrongly, they have come to believe that
we are not to be trusted; that we make our international rela-
tions the sport of politics and treat them as if they were in
no wise different from questions of domestic legislation. This
has not been in accord with our history or our tradition. Only
once have we abrogated a treaty, and then actual if not declared
war existed. We have scrupulously observed our international
agreements, and where differences have arisen we have settled
them not with the high hand of power but by negotiation and
arbitration. The President has written the history of his coun-
try, and it would be strange, indeed, if he did not desire to main-
tain our tradition of good faith and fair dealing with the other
nations of the earth. It is not well for any country, no matter
how powerful, to be an outlaw among the nations. Not so many
years ago there were people in England who used to speak with
pride of her “splendid isolation,” but they soon found out that
While isolation might be splendid, it was in the highest degree
undesirable. Since those days England has been making every
effort to escape from her “splendid isolation,” as has been Con-
spicuously shown by the alliance with Japan and the entente
with France.
I suppose that at this moment in the midst of the adroitly
stimulated passions raised against the President’s recommenda-
tion that We should repeal the toll exemption it will be thought
very poor spirited and even truckling—I believe that is the
accepted word—to suggest that in deciding this question we
should take into consideration the opinions of other nations.
Nevertheless, I consider this a very important element in any
decision which I may reach, and I am encouraged to believe
that I am right in so thinking, because I have the warrant and
authority of the author of the Declaration of Independence.
When Jefferson framed that great instrument he declared that
the impelling reason for making the Declaration was “a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind.” That decent respect to the
38.939—13153
20
Opinions of mankind Ought never to be forgotten in the decision
of any question which involves the relations of our own country
With the Other nations Of the earth.
The long delay in the ratification by the Senate of the treaties
renewing the arbitration treaties of 1908 produced a widespread
feeling among other nations that our championship of the princi-
ple of arbitration and Our loud boasts of Our devotion to the
cause of peace were the merest hypocrisy, because we seemed
ready to abandon the cause of arbitration when it looked as if
Our treaties might bring us to the arbitration of questions which
we did not desire to have decided by an impartial tribunal. The
President renewed the arbitration treaties, and finally, after a
delay which, as I have said, aroused unpleasant Suspicions,
those which have been sent to the Senate have been ratified.
This was the President’s first step, as I look at it, in his effort
to restore the influence and rentifafion of the TInifed Stafes,
which he had found to be impaired. His second step is his
recommendation of the repeal of the toll-exemption clause of the
Canal act. I speak wholly without authority, but I believe that
he must have thought that OUIr insistence upon a contested in-
terpretation of a treaty and upon a disputed method of relieving
our vessels from the payment of tolls has injured us in the Opin-
iOn Of Civilized mankind, and that he believes that the Object
sought in no way justifies the results which will necessarily
follow in the attitude Of Other nations toward US.
He must be, I believe, Satisfied, as I am satisfied, that other
nations will hesitate long before they will enter upon treaties
with a country which insists on deciding all disputed points in
treaties in its Own favor by a majority vote Of Congress. It
would not surprise me to learn that the President is of opinion
that such disputed points Ought to be settled as we have settled
them in the past, with which, as a historian, he is familiar,
either by negotiation or by arbitration and not by our own votes
without appeal and open only to the arbitrament of the Sword.
He must feel, I think, that by Our action, considered in other
lands to be in disregard of treaty obligations, we are raising a
serious Obstacle to the development Of closer trade relations
with the countries Of South America, which are SO important
to us on every ground. These reasons, which I think must also
be very weighty with the President, seem to me not only sound
but convincing. There is no particular courage required to
insist upon passing Our Own ships through the canal without
the payment of tolls. We incur no physical danger in doing SO,
and to hurl defiance at the rest of the World under these con-
ditions is no doubt a very agreeable pastime to those who
engage in it, more especially as it has the added attraction Of
being a perfectly safe amusement, but it seems not wholly Satis-
fying as an argument. The attitude of Ajax defying the light-
ning is not a very inspiring one if there is no lightning to be
feared. The outcry about exhibiting subserviency to Great
Britain or any other country because we See fit to repeal the
tolls seems to me hardly worthy of Serious consideration. The
United States is altogether too great and too powerful to be
subservient to anyone, and the mere fact of suggesting it seems
to me to indicate an uneasy Suspicion on the part of those from
whom it emanates not only of the validity of their position but
of the power and greatness of their own country, as to which I,
38.939–13153
21
for one, am troubled by no doubts. As I have listened to some
recent stirring declarations of our utter fearlessness, of our
readiness to face a world in arms, in defense of toll exemption,
about which noble cause no country would think of fighting,
there have been moments when I have marveled as I thought of
the coolness and indifference with which we have contemplated
the murder of more than a hundred and fifty Americans not
many miles from our own border. The violated rights, the un-
avenged, the almost unnoticed deaths of those innocent people
have seemed to make heroics about canal tolls, where there is no
peril to anyone peculiarly out of place.
We obtained by the passage of the toll-exemption clause no
legal rights which we did not already possess; we waive none
by its repeal. All we have we retain, for the law is merely Our
own statute for the regulation of the terms upon which the
Canal shall be used. The larger question which is raised by
the toll exemption, however, has a purely international Char-
acter, and that we ought to decide, now and in the future, not
on considerations of pecuniary profit or momentary political
exigencies, but on the broad grounds which I have indicated.
We should determine what is right without fear and without
favor. In reaching our decision let us not forget the words of
Washington that— - -
The nation which indulges toward another an habitual hatred or
habitual fondness is in some degree a Slave. It is a Slave to its ani-
mosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray
from its duty and its interest.
I am not blind to the political temptations which the situa-
tion at this moment presents. I am a strong party man. I
believe in government by parties and in party responsibility.
I have for many years fought the battles of the Republican
Party, alike in days Of SunShine and in days Of Storm and dark-
ness. If life and strength continue, I shall to the best of my
ability oppose President Wilson if he is a candidate for reelec-
tion and the party which he leads. The allurements of politic. :
advantage appeal as strongly' to me as they can to any man.
But when the relations of my country with other nations are
involved I can not yield to them. My politics have always
stopped at the water’s edge. In any question involving our in-
ternational relations I have always felt compelled to decide
it upon its merits as they appeared to me, without regard to
politics. This feeling has twice, at least, obliged me to oppose
Presidents of my own political faith upon treaties which they
had recommended, a misfortune and unhappiness which I wish
might have been spared to me. In a great international ques-
tion I felt it to be my duty On One occasion to Sustain President
Cleveland, but his policy in regard to Venezuela in resistance
to British claims involved serious issues and grave possibilities;
it was not mere posturing and declamation against another
country, importing no danger and adapted only to raise the
temperature around our polling booths. To-day I must still—
Obey the voice at eve, obeyed at prime.
I voted and spoke against the toll exemption embodied in the
Canal act. I can not change now merely because a Democratic
President recommends the repeal of that clause which I earn-
estly resisted. Within Our Own borders Mr. Wilson is the
leader and chief of the Democratic Party. In the presence of
38.939–18153
22
foreign nations he is to me simply the President of the United
States. If in his high responsibility as the representative of
the Nation before the World he does or tries to do what I be-
lieve in my conscience to be wrong I shall resist him, no matter
What his political faith may be. But if he is doing or trying
to do what I conscientiously believe to be right he shall have
my full support without regard to party or to politics. To
thwart the purposes or to discredit the policies of the official
head of a political party is legitimate political warfare. To
discredit Or break down the President Of the United States
upon a question of foreign policy is quite another thing, never
to be undertaken except for very grave reasons. In the one
Case we overthrow a party leader and political chief within the
arena. Where the American people alone Sit in judgment; in
the other we break down and discredit the representative of
the whole country in the great forum of the nations of the
earth and paralyze his future power and usefulness in that field
Where he and he alone can declare and represent the policies,
the honor, and the dignity of the United States. Conditions
may arise where this last resort' must be accepted, but it can
only be justified by grim necessity. With my view as to the
tolls, with my deep convictions as to what is due to the Presi-
dent Of the United States when he faces foreign nations, I
should be faithless to the principles I have always cherished
if I did not now give him an unreserved support.
For these reasons which I have set forth, although I believe
we have the right to exempt our vessels from tolls, I have come
to the Conclusion that this clause in the canal act, which I have
Opposed from the OutSet, Ought to be repealed. I think it should
be repealed because we can obtain the same results, if We de-
Sire them, in an undisputed manner and without any greater
charge upon the Treasury of the United States. I think so be-
cause foreign opinion is united against us, while opinion in Our
Own Country is divided as to the proper interpretation of the
language of the treaty, and I am not willing to have the good
faith of the United States impugned on account of action taken
upon such a contested ground as this. I think the exemption
clause should be repealed because the understanding upon which
the treaty was made is declared by all our negotiators to have
been contrary to that which I think a strict legal interpretation
Of the terms of the rules would warrant. Finally, I think it
should be repealed because a decent respect for the opinions of
mankind and the high position of the United States among the
nations Of the World demand it.
Mr. President, the construction of the Panama Canal is one of
the greatest achievements of the people of the United States.
We Owe a debt to the French who preceded us in the attempt
to cut the Isthmus at that point, and We freely acknowledge
the benefit which we have derived, not only from their Surveys
and their engineering but from the sacrifices which they SO
freely made in behalf of this great undertaking. I sincerely
hope that the bill proposed by the Senator from Mississippi, to
erect a monument to De Lesseps at the entrance to the canal,
will be passed, and that that monument will also commemorate
the deeds of the men who gave their lives to the task which
their country had imposed. I hope, too, that when the canal
is opened we shall permit the little boat named Louise, in-
38.939–13153
23
herited by us from the French, to pass through with the first
American battleship, and that we shall then give it to France,
so that it may rest upon the waters of the Seine, a memorial
to a great work which the people of France first attempted and
also to the long friendship of the two nations.
But while France made the first effort and failed, we took
up the work and carried it to completion. It is the greatest
engineering feat of modern times, and the triumphant result
is due not only to the genius of our military engineers but to
the labor of the medical Officers Of the Army, who converted hot-
beds of pestilence into a region as healthful as any on the face.
of the earth. Nothing, to my thinking, could be finer than the
work of the great army which Col. Goethals has led to this vic-
tory of peace, and which has never faltered or swerved in its
onward march through mountains and by Takes: Tu all that
Vast expenditure, in all the enormo's labors which have been
begun and completed upon that historic Isthmus there is no
Spot or blemish to be found. Nºt Only the canal itself but the
manner in which it has been built are among the noblest na-
tional achievements, which the history of the United States will
cherish and preserve. I trust that all this glory and that this
noble work, done not merely for our own profit but for the
benefit of the world, will not be disfigured by a desire to
put money into the pockets of a few American citizens in a
questionable manne?. I should be grieved to see this great
monument of American genius and American skill defaced by
a sorry effort, to affront other nations when we complete a vast
work designed to promote not trade alone but peace and good.
will among all mankind.
38039–13153
O
|
* Ill
ºn W. G.F MICH. t
J. Llºra RY
Filmed by Preservation i
1995
t
*
;
!... . . ...'
• . . º
- . ...:*,
*
* *
3.
* *
Jº
'a
|
# *
t
|
{
| #
}