INTRODUCTION DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, September 4, 1914. HON. HUGH GORDON MILLER and 220 Broadway, New York, N. Y. Gentlemen: I have read the preface to your proposed volume entitled, "The Panama Canal Tolls Controversy," and beg to commend both the purpose and the style of the work. From the outline of the book's contents, as set forth in the preface, I feel sure that the publication will be of great value to the public, and will assist American citizens to understand the merits of the question. The position taken by the President on the tolls question aroused more opposition at that time than it would arouse today, subsequent events having completely vindicated the wisdom of his action. The enviable position which our nation occupies today is due, in part, to the fact that it has allowed no doubt to exist as to its purpose to live up to the stipulations of its treaty. There were economic considerations which weighed heavily in favor of the repeal of the free tolls law, but these were less important than those which affected the international standing of our nation. A government must be above suspicion in the matter of good faith; no pecuniary advantage, even where such an advantage actually exists, can for a moment justify the violation of a treaty obligation, and violation must be the more scrupulously avoided if the question is one which is not to be submitted to arbitration. In international matters the question is not whether we are ourselves certain of our Government's purpose in the position taken, but whether other nations, also, have confidence in our rectitude. The President set a high standard and the support given to him in the Senate and House was as creditable to Congress as it was complimentary to him. The popular approval which is now accorded to both the President and Congress on this subject is proof positive that the people can be trusted to pass judgment upon the merit of international, as well as domestic, questions. Your book will be a reference book to those who have already informed themselves, while it will furnish instruction to those who have not heretofore been in position to sit in judgment upon the principle involved and the facts adduced in support of the action taken. Very truly yours, (Signed) WM. J. BRYAN. INTRODUCTION There is no more honorable chapter in the highly creditable history of the diplomacy of our country than the repeal of the PANAMA TOLLS ACT under the present administration. Being a controversy affecting our international relations, it is gratifying that, aside from the leadership of the President, the repeal was effected not solely by the party in power, but by the help of leaders in all three parties, rising above the plane of partisan politics to the higher reaches of broad statesmanship, guided by a scrupulous regard for our international character in accord with "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind," as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. The debates in Congress upon the subject of repeal proved to be of a quality in learning, ability and eloquence in keeping with the best traditions of our national legislature. Some of the leading Democratic members of the Senate and the House opposed the President's recommendations for the repeal, while some of the leading members of the opposition effectively supported the President. The debates in Congress and the discussion by distinguished publicists developed three distinct points of view. Former President Taft, who when President approved the Panama Act, held substantially that the Act did not violate our treaty obligations, and therefore we had a right to exempt our ships from tolls. A similar position was taken by Senator O'Gorman and Representative Underwood, the Administration leaders in the Senate and the House, and other prominent Democrats, some of whom took the ground that there was no basis for arbitration because the question was clear and undoubted, that the provision of our score or more of treaties providing for arbitration when the construction of a treaty was involved did not apply, as there was nothing to arbitrate. A second group of opponents to the repeal held with former President Roosevelt, who will be recognized in history as the father of the Panama Canal, and whose former action and justified course, when all the facts are taken in consideration, free from partisan bias, made it possible for us to build the Canal; he held, while we have the right under the treaties to exempt our coastwise ships from toll, yet, as the Panama Act involved the construction of treaties, it was our duty to arbitrate if arbitration was demanded by Great Britain. A third group, led by Senator Root, whose speech in the Senate will be treasured as a classic in our Congressional debates, maintained that the Panama Act was so plainly in violation of our treaty obligations both in letter and in spirit as confirmed by the negotiators and the negotiations of the Hay-Pauncefote treaties, that it was our plain duty to repeal the exemption clause of the Act. The position of President Wilson, as taken in his Special Message to Congress, placed him in a group by himself. In his appeal on moral and international grounds to Congress he said: "The large thing to do is the only thing we can afford to do, a voluntary withdrawal from a position everywhere quoted and misunderstood. We ought to reverse our action without raising the question whether we were right or wrong, and so once more deserve our reputation for generosity and for the redemption of our every obligation without quibble or hesitation." President Taft, in signing the PANAMA CANAL ACT, which was approved by him on the 24th of August, 1912, filed a memorandum wherein he stated that in a message to Congress he had suggested a possible amendment by which all persons and especially British subjects who felt aggrieved by its provisions on the ground that they are in violation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, might try that question out in the Supreme Court of the United States. This raises a constitutional question about which there is much misconception, namely, the conflict between a treaty and a later act of Congress. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that the laws of the United States and all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. There have been many decisions of the Supreme Court upon the subject which, if read apart from the specific issues involved, are apt to confuse. This subject cannot be adequately considered in this introduction, and therefore I shall content myself with quoting from Justice Miller's decision in the Supreme Court, in the Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. He says: "A treaty is primarily a compact between independent nations. It depends for the enforcement of its provisions on the interest and the honor of the Governments which are parties to it. If these fail, its infraction becomes the subject of international negotiations and reclamations, so far as the injured party chooses to seek redress, which may in the end be enforced by actual war. It is obvious that with all this the judicial courts have nothing to do and can give no redress." |