Repeal of Exemption of Coastwise Ships from Canal Toll. 
 
 REMARKS 
 
 OF * 
 
 HON. WILLIAM C. ADAMSON, 
 
 OF GEORGIA, 
 
 In the House of Representatives, 
 
 January 15, 1913. 
 
 Mr. ADAMSON. Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly been asked 
 why I do not press the bill introduced by Mr. Sims to repeal 
 the exemption of coastwise ships from Panama Canal tolls. 
 
 I have refrained from doing so for various reason^- soineli. 
 of which I will state, now that Senator Root has introduced’ 
 a similar bill. I have always favored uniform tolls. I made 
 the best fight I could and lost. I don’t wish to appear ugly 
 or sore, nor have I believed it wise to do anything that 
 might embarrass the efforts of the President to settle dif¬ 
 ferences with England by diplomacy. But the best reason of 
 all is that I have not been satisfied that Congress is ready to 
 repeal the exemption, nor that the President is ready to approve 
 it. If I did so believe, I wouid vote to report out the Sims bill 
 at once. When the President suggested that Congress disclaim 
 intention to violate the treaty and provide for a judicial adjudi¬ 
 cation of the questions under the treaty, statesmen who helped 
 him secure the discrimination refused to favor such disclaimer. 
 
 T thought as the operation of the canal was a long ways off the 
 President would have ample time to agree with England by 
 making her some concessions elsewhere, if it should appear to be 
 the settled policy of Congress to discriminate in favor of coast¬ 
 wise vessels. Just what concessions might be desired by Eng¬ 
 land, or ^granted by this Government, I don’t know, but there 
 are a great many points at which the interests and transactions 
 of the English people and our people come in contact. I thought 
 that if there was a genuine desire for an adjustment it could be 
 reached by a diligent effort to find a basis. I would never favor, 
 however, making concessions of similar exemption to the Cana¬ 
 dian coastwise trade. I have no doubt that would satisfy Eng¬ 
 land, but it would mean a double burden to our people and a 
 double inroad on the Treasury. If the exemption of our coast¬ 
 wise vessels deprives our Treasury of $2,000,000 per annum, a 
 like concession to the Canadian coastwise trade would double 
 the amount and deprive the Treasury of that much more money, 
 and to that extent make the canal a heavier charge on the 
 Treasury. 
 
 I do not care to discuss the question of arbitration. The 
 State Department has that under consideration, and if Congress 
 adheres to the position taken it is the duty of the State Depart¬ 
 ment, first, to deal with international differences. It is not out 
 of place, however, to say that when you are lost in the jungle 
 73804—11703 
 
2 
 
 
 the surest way to get out is to take the route by which you 
 came iu. It requires manhood to take the back track, and few 
 men aYe big enough to display that much moral courage, but 
 inasmuch as the President by a message aided the ship interests 
 to mislead Congress into error, the President would earn a 
 reputation for greatness if he would send a message to Congress 
 advising a repeal of the exemption clause and confessing his 
 error. There is no doubt that a great blunder has been com¬ 
 mitted, and the President could very greatly aid in correcting 
 that blunder by adopting the above suggestion. Equality is 
 common honesty. At the first blush that is what is naturally 
 expected. The burden is on the party proposing a variation 
 therefrom. Disinterested men expect and demand nothing else. 
 
 There are three reasons why uniform tolls should prevail. 
 
 First. All commerce using the canal, which shortens the 
 journeys of all A lika about 8,000 miles per” journey, should 
 equally share the expense of operating and maintaining the 
 canal, which confers such great,benefit upop all. There is little 
 doubt that for the first few years the cost for the operation and 
 maintenance will exceed the revenue's derived from collecting 
 from all vessels, except the official vessels belonging to our Gov¬ 
 ernment, all the uniform tolls that the traffic will bear. Opti¬ 
 mists and theorists have prophesied otherwise, but their prophesy 
 will come to naught. The operation and maintenance of the 
 canal will for the first years be a charge upon the Treasury to 
 some extent, and if our coastwise ships be exempt from tolls 
 the charge on the Treasury will be a very large one. Just what 
 effect discrimination in favor of our coastwise ships against all 
 other vessels, including those of our own people in the foreign 
 trade, will have in repelling business which would otherwise, 
 under fair conditions, patronize our canal no man can tell, but 
 whatever the extent may be it will surely be adverse to the 
 patronage and profits of the canal. 
 
 Second. Exempting -the coastwise s hips, f rom tgjln in nothing 
 more nor J^ss-TIi an diverting from th e,-£ammoa- Teeas»wa^>^£JJie 
 people a dollar and twenty cents per ton on ships belong! - ! ! 
 
 special interest, to which we give that large bonus and bounty 
 out'of the money belonging to all the people; antTnidf 'special 
 interest belongs to a body of people numerically insignificant, 
 but financially powerful, already holding a monopoly of the 
 coastwise trade against all the world, dividing up and parcel¬ 
 ing among them the ports and routes of travel, holding up rates 
 by not competing with one another; they are the most highly 
 protected people in the world and have absolutely no need of 
 financial help from the Government. 
 
 The advocates and supporters of exemption make a mistake 
 when they take comfort and press as unction to their souls the 
 idea that there is a difference between this exemption and the 
 ordinary subsidy; that they do not really take the money out 
 out the Treasury, but only head it off and keep it from going 
 into the Treasury. It is true the money is not actually in the 
 Treasury, and it may be easier to fool the people and delude 
 them into believing that nobody is taking their money and that 
 there is nothing lost, but such people ought to read the 
 ancient law which made it a greater crime to steal wet linen 
 hanging out to dry than that which was actually locked up so it 
 could be protected. If any difference, it is a meaner subsidy 
 than taking from the Treasury direct. I am unable to find in 
 73804—11703 
 
3 
 
 the Constitution, my oath of office, or the Ten Commandments 
 any justification to vote to take or divert money from the Treas¬ 
 ury belonging to 96,000,000 people whom we represent and who 
 are not here to pass on it themselves and give it to a small pri- f>> a 
 vate interest. 
 
 Third. We are constructing that canal under jg treaty. . V 
 
 was not conve n ie n t' to »eut--fche canrrf fFonTocka n*Toocea n across cy v 
 our territory. We had to make two contracts, one with Eng¬ 
 land and one with Panama, before we could construct a canal in 
 a foreign country. Those who claim that conditions have 
 changed by virtue of our sovereignty speak without due refer¬ 
 ence to diplomatic history. En gl a ml p A.. i n - tup - 
 
 I-Tav-Paiineef Qte _traal ;g . .- tka in.-.SQve.rei.gBtv skouM 
 affWTTCe" stipu lations that^^ ^ y Our sov- 
 erefguXy I^decWeOTyTmperfect if you remember the stipulations 
 we made with Panama and the treaty by which it is claimed 
 that we acquired sovereignty, for in that selfsame treaty we 
 reaffirmed the stipulation as to equality of charges and condi¬ 
 tions of traffic. We are under obligation in that same treaty to 
 pay perpetually an annual rental of $250,000. Unfortunately, 
 the Ship Trust, by the most stupendous and extended lobbying 
 ever known on earth, conducted systematically ever since the 
 work on the Panama Canal began, secured the aid of the yellow 
 journals and ‘procured the mistaken indorsements of various 
 civic organizations throughout the country and inflamed the 
 jingoes into obscuring the real question and substituting there¬ 
 for in the popular mind the false and impertinent issue as to 
 whether England shall be allowed to manage our affairs. There 
 is no such question at issue. England has simply reminded us 
 that we have agreed to charge everybody at the canal alike, 
 which is the truth, and we ought to be honest with ourselves 
 without the aid of England. If we would just observe Shakes¬ 
 peare’s lines— 
 
 To thine own self he true, * * * 
 
 Thou canst not then be false to any man— 
 
 we would first deal fairly with our own people by refusing to 
 give their money to special interests, then England would have 
 no cause of complaint against us for broken faith through the 
 violation of the treaty. 
 
 The construction England puts upon the treaty will inevi¬ 
 tably and unavoidably be reached by anybody who will read 
 the diplomatic history of transit across the Isthmus. Since 
 the days of Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams, when Nicara¬ 
 gua first suggested to us the building of a canal, we have in- ■ 
 sisted on the very same position which England now holds— 
 that all nations and all vessels and all commerce should be 
 treated alike. We have ourselves often complained of alleged 
 violations of that equality in other dealings and joint use of 
 facilities with England, have insisted on correction, and have 
 always obtained it. The claim that coastwise vessels can be 
 treated differently from ships in the foreign trade is not sus¬ 
 tained by an examination of our treaties. Among all the 
 treaties we have made with other Governments for amity and 
 commerce there is no distinction as to the privileges of different 
 classes of vessels, except when it is expressly so stated. In 
 every case when a nation desired to reserve domestic control of 
 its coastwise trade it has been so stipulated in the treaty. The 
 absence of such stipulations leaves no distinction in any case. 
 
 73804—11703 
 
0112 061935927 
 
 4 
 
 In all treaties touching transit across the Isthmus the only case 
 in which it is pretended that foreign vessels and commerce may 
 he treated differently from domestic vessels and commerce is in 
 the case of Mexico dealing with the Tehuantepec Railroad. In¬ 
 asmuch as that railroad was built on Mexican soil entirely, 
 beginning and ending at Mexican ports and constructed with 
 Mexican capital or credit, she was not constrained by any con¬ 
 sideration to grant equality to all. Standing in that condition, 
 she rightfully and expressly stipulated that that railroad would 
 treat all other nations alike, but favor Mexican commerce if it 
 was desired. But constructing a canal across the Isthmus by 
 a Government and by a people not resident on the Isthmus was 
 entirely a different proposition. Under the Clayto ii-Bulwer 
 treaty we were not permitted to build a Government cana l; we 
 wef^TTiot permitted to fortify it; we were bound with other 
 nations to protect its neutrality; and in the preamble and in 
 section' 8 we were all bound to exact equality in the operation 
 of the canal in charges and conditions of traffic. In considera¬ 
 tion of preserving those last provisions and stipulations unim¬ 
 paired, and expressly so stated in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, 
 our Government and England modified the Clayton-Bulwer 
 treaty so as to permit us to construct it at our Government’s 
 expense, operate, and take the profits, we further agreeing to 
 relieve England dnd the balance of the world of preserving 
 neutrality, and therefore we were permitted to police and for¬ 
 tify the canal. In brief, that is all there is to it. Unless we 
 do have the manliness to protect our honor among the nations 
 and protect the interests of our people and the integrity of the 
 Treasury by voluntarily repealing the exemption of the coast¬ 
 wise ships from tolls, I do not see how we are going to escape 
 submitting to arbitration and maintain any pretense to honor 
 and respect among the nations of the world. 
 
 I am very much surprised to find advocates of the exemp¬ 
 tion opposing submission to arbitration, because one argument 
 the advocates of the special privileges used to carry the exemp¬ 
 tion through Congress was that we could assume the right 
 under the treaty to make the exemption, let England make the 
 issue if she wished to object, formulate an issue, and submit 
 it to arbitration. In the House, pending the consideration of 
 the canal bill, that proposition was replied to by me. When the 
 President manifested uneasiness and confusion on suddenly dis¬ 
 covering the dissatisfaction of England, just before he signed 
 the canal bill, I drew a bill to repeal the exemption, intending 
 to introduce it as soon as the President signed the bill for the 
 operation of the canal. Being called away before that approval 
 came in, I gave the bill to Mr. Sims and requested him to intro¬ 
 duce it, -which he afterwards did. I do not care to do a useless 
 piece of work; but if I become satisfied in the next five weeks 
 that Congress would pass the Sims bill and that the President 
 would approve it, I will call it up in the committee and do my 
 best to have it reported. If I discover no such favorable indi¬ 
 cations, I shall favor waiting for the next Congress and the 
 next administration to deal with the subject—protect the inter¬ 
 ests of our people, preserve the integrity of our Treasury, and 
 maintain the honor of our Republic among the nations of the 
 world. 
 
 73804—11703 
 
 o 
 
 WASHINGTON : GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1913