Let us see. Most of these things have been mentioned already, but I want to drive them home now if I can. Everybody admits that we made the same agreement with regard to ships of war that we have made with regard to ships of commerce, and that if we have agreed to charge our ships of commerce the same that we charge other ships of commerce, then we have agreed to charge our ships of war the same that we charge other ships of war.

I know, of course, that everybody will agree that we can not do that, and everybody says that must be eliminated from the compact; but I am inquiring as to the purpose and intent of the people who used this language, and my argument is that because they did provide that there should be the same payment for ships of war and that the conditions should be the same for these instruments of battle as are provided for the ships of commerce, therefore it was not in the minds of the men who made the agreement that we should charge our shipping the same as we charge other shipping.

We all agree, do we not, that it would be legally impossible for the United States to charge for the transmission of our ships of war through this canal? If there is a Senator here who can tell me how it can be done, I will be obliged to him. I say that it is legally impossible for the United States to pay itself for the passage of one of its warships through this canal. It is contrary to the fundamental principles of the law which applies to that subject. A man can not pay himself. A nation can not pay itself. If this Nation were to pay $5,000 for the passage of the Oregon through the canal, to whom would it pay it? It would pay the United States, and that is no payment at all. Therefore is it not entirely clear that those who used this language did not intend that the United States should be among those nations that were to pay the same for their ships of war and ships of commerce?

*

*

*

*

*

*

Mr. President, the absurdity of requiring the captain of a war vessel to pay the tolls into the Treasury of the United States, and the absurdity of calling that a payment, would be duplicated in commerce.

The United States now owns, I believe, eight ships that ply between New York and Colon. The United States is directly engaged in commerce. I know that there intervenes the form of a corporation known as the Panama Railroad & Steamship Co., but that is a mere shadow. It does not touch the substance of the matter.

Suppose that after this canal is finished these 8 ships, with 8 more or 20 more that the United States may buy or build, shall enter the carrying trade between New York and San Francisco or New York and Valparaiso, or New York and any other port on the western shore. There is no reason why it should not be done, and indeed I am wholly in favor of doing it if the opportunity does not attract private enterprise.

We intend to have competition through that canal; and if by any mischance competition by water is destroyed or fails to appear, then the United States will be carrying commerce between our eastern and our western shores. And let me ask whether that is a contingency that was not present in the minds of the men who made this treaty? The other nations of the world are engaged in transportation. The other nations of the world have gone into the business of common carriers. Why should not the United States go into that business? It is the tendency of the times, as was known to every person who had anything to do with the negotiation of this treaty. And yet if that contingency was in the minds of the men who made this treaty, tell me how these ships that belong to the United States and are carrying commerce from one shore to the other can pay the United States for passage through the canal? As I said a moment ago, those who are standing for the interpretation that excludes this power of the Government will recoil from that interpretation when they face the fact that, carried to its logical end, it substantially forbids the United States to enter this trade. And if that be the interpretation, then we have agreed with Great Britain that never will we charter a ship and send that ship for commercial purposes through the Panama Canal.

The conclusion is so absurd--and it is not more absurd than it is dangerous and startling-that the American people will not endure any interpretation of this treaty that will preclude the exercise of their power to send their own ships, both in commerce and for war, through the canal; and they can not send either through the canal if the interpretation insisted upon here is to be the accepted construction of our agreement.

I think we ought to hesitate a long while before we agree that we have surrendered to Great Britain or to the rest of mankind any such power as I have described.

But that is not all. I suppose you all agree with me that as to the citizens of Great Britain, for instance, the United States could not discriminate as between them. Is there anyone here who dissents from that proposition?

The United States could not discriminate between citizens of Great Britain or France or Germany or Italy or any other nation with regard to their traffic through the canal. We have agreed we would not discriminate between their citizens. We have agreed that we would give them all an even opportunity, and we would allow them all to enjoy the same conditions. If this is to bear the construction which has been put upon it, then we have agreed that we will not discriminate among our own citizens with regard to traffic in the canal. If this be true, we can not send our coastwise ships through the canal at one charge and our ships engaged in the foreign trade subject to another charge. We have agreed in this purely domestic matter, a thing over which Great Britain has no more control and over which she ought not to have any more control than she has over the policies of heaven, and yet we have surrendered it to Great Britain, and we have given to the courts of Europe and of Africa and of Asia the right to say what we shall do between our own people as to this shipping.

I can not think that when the full depth of the sea upon which these men who contend for the other interpretation of the treaty is measured that there will be many who will desire to embark upon that sea.

But that is not all. It has been said here more than once that this interpretation not only does not give us equality, but it imposes upon us clear inferiority. There is not a lawyer, there is not a layman here, there is not a man of observation and sense, who will not agree that this subterfuge of paying tolls into the Treasury of the United States and having those tolls, by a law made theretofore, returned at once to the ships that paid them is unworthy of a great Nation like ours. It would be unworthy of an individual. It would be unworthy of anyone who values substance and does not promote form above the reality. We can not, if we have agreed that there shall be no discrimination by any form, in any form, at any time, return these toils to the ships which paid them.

We could do that if there was no understanding beforehand. If there was no law beforehand for the return of the tolls, then it might not be subject to the criticism I have suggested; but if we pass a law that all American ships passing through the canal shall pay these tolls, and thereafter the Treasurer of the United States shall return to the ship the tolls so paid, we will have violated this treaty, under the interpretation given to it by some of my brother Senators, just as completely and just as certainly as if we were now to pass a law that no tolls at all should be charged; and, besides having violated the treaty, we would have exposed ourselves to the contempt of the whole world for endeavoring to do indirectly a thing that we had not the courage to do directly; and whatever else we may do, let us at least preserve a reputation for doing whatever we do openly, so that all the civilized nations may understand just what we are doing.

But that is not all. England will return to her ships the tolls that we impose, France will, Germany will, and probably all the nations of Europe will, and yet we will be tied by a construction of the treaty which, I think, does as much violence to its language as it does violence to the fundamental rights of American citizens. We can not escape from the situation into which we have been forced by a failure to boldly assume in the beginning that this treaty means what it says, what it must have meant in the minds of those who framed it, on account of the considerations to which I am now calling your attention.

But again, charges are no more required to be equal by this treaty than conditions. The conditions must be the same. Let me ask the Senator from Ohio [Mr. BURTON], who is to answer me, what he thinks of this case: Suppose the United States should erect docks in the harbor of Cristobal and Balboa, docks in the entrance of this canal for the accommodation of American shipping? He will contend, I assume, that we can erect no dock there that is to afford a facility for an American citizen or an American ship but which must be equally open to a foreign citizen and to a foreign ship. We must not only give to these nations the benefit of all that we have already expended, but we must be willing to give to them the benefit of all the money that we hereafter will expend in order to encourage and stimulate and convenience our own shipping. If there

is any difference between conditions and charges I hope that those who follow me will be able to point it out.

Not only so, we have a bill here which imposes a condition upon American ships that is not imposed on foreign ships. I want you to put away your varying opinions with regard to the merits of the proposition; I want you to look at it only to inquire whether it is within our power. This bill proposes that no American ship in the coastwise trade shall pass through the canal if it be controlled by a railway company. I should like to know of my friends upon the other side whether they think that is within the terms of the treaty. Have we violated our engagements with Great Britain when we have imposed upon our own shipping a condition of this character? According to the construction of those who would surrender this power we have violated it. We can not say as to our own shipping that it must be free and independent, unless we say it as to the whole world.

We have no more agreed that charges shall be the same than that conditions shall be the same. I want to know whether there is a Senator here or whether there is a man who loves his country within the borders of the United States who will be willing to accede to the suggestion the we have not the power to impose that condition upon our shipping.

I might pursue this thought indefinitely. I have not suggested these things to Congress in order to escape from any obligation that it has assumed. I for one am willing to bear the burden, whatever it may be, but I am not willing that Great Britain shall say what that burden is. I have mentioned these things in order to convince all of you that when this treaty was being made it is utterly impossible to conceive that our Secretary of State and our President and our other advisers had in mind or could have had in mind that all the charges and all the conditions of trade through the canal should be the same as to foreign and domestic shipping.

I repeat the one thought, and that is that we have engaged with Great Britain and through Great Britain with the whole world that this canal shall be open in war as well as in peace, and that we will not impose upon the trade of the world other conditions or other charges than those which are fair and equitable under all the circumstances which surround trade and commerce..

But I take one step further. The Senator from North Dakota said in a tone of triumph the other day that it was plainly evident trom the second paragraph of article 3 that all these obligations had been assumed by the United States, and that it was and is one of the nations included in the phrase so often quoted, and he read, 'The canal shall never be blockaded nor shall any right of war be exercised nor any act of hostility be committed within it."

66

I want those Senators who are experienced in the language of diplomacy and especially experienced in the terminology of war to tell me what a blockade is. I may be wrong, but as I understand it the blockade of a port is the intervention of ships of war so stationed that commerce can not enter the port. It is a measure that is adopted by one power against another with which it may be at war.

Tell me if you will whether our distinguished Secretary of State, if he had desired to say that the United States shall keep this canal open for commerce, would have said the United States shall not blockade this canal? It is impossible to conceive of the use of those words, if that be the intent. The United States could not blockade this canal any more than it could blockade one of its own ports of which it was in full possession. The United States is in possession of the Panama Canal; in possession of its 10-mile territory that adjoins it; in possession of its locks; in possession of every facility that makes it usable by the commerce of the world. If the United States desired to arrest the operations of the canal and prevent commerce from passing through the canal, it would not blockade the canal. It could, by the turning of a screw, destroy the canal for use in a commercial way or in a warlike way either. Without its will not a single ship could pass through the canal.

Therefore, will you say to me that when John Hay was using the language here employed he intended to say that the United States should never blockade the canal? No; he said the canal should never be blockaded, and it is for us to see that it never shall be blockaded. We have agreed to maintain the canal so that it can be used by all the world, and if any nation shall attempt to prevent the ingress or the egress of vessels through the canal upon peaceful errands

it is the solemn obligation of the United States to see that that effort does not succeed and that there shall be no blockade of these waters.

Again, if it was intended by the distinguished Secretary of State that his own country should be one of the nations upon which all these rules are to rest, then we are one of the belligerents mentioned, in the other paragraphs of the rule. The third one reads thus:

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

Neutralization does not involve the provision which I have just read so far as occupation by the United States is concerned.

I repeat, as I have said often, we have undertaken that these waters shall be open for the commerce of the world. I can easily understand the application of that rule. If Great Britain were at war with France these are then neutral waters. The ships of neither would be allowed to remain longer than the appointed time in or near the canal. Neither of the ships would be permitted to take on other stores than the laws of war permit, and the treaty becomes intelligible and can be executed with honor and for the welfare of all the people. But suppose that the United States is one of the belligerents; we have a territory there 10 miles wide and a canal through it. We have acquired the one and constructed the other at immense cost, and the sovereignty of the United States is supreme over both. Do you think that any representative of the Government of the United States has ever agreed that under those circumstances a canal so built, with a sovereignty so exercised, that one of our own ships of war, when this Nation is a belligerent, must hasten through this canal, taking no other provision than would be allowed to a foreign ship and leaving it defenseless, if you please, against the belligerent with which we might be at war?

If any Secretary of State ever so dreamed it must have been at a time when he had forgotten all the traditions of the race to which he belonged, and if any Congress ever decides and proclaims that the United States can not use this canal for her ships of war when her life is at stake, that Congress will go down in history under the universal detestation of a liberty-loving land.

Finally, I desire to read another paragraph of the treaty:

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

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

This reading simply intensifies the observations I have already made with respect to the canal. Is there an American anywhere who believes that we ever agree in time of war to treat our ships and our men and the means for our safety in the way pointed out in this treaty? The statement of the case is the best argument that I can make upon it.

I hope, of course, that war will never come. I am not saying these things because I believe it is imminent. I am saying them to test the mind of the man who made this agreement for the United States, and I am saying them for the purpose of removing any doubt that may be in the Senate in regard to what was intended by this treaty.

We will do injustice to his memory if we attach to him the imputation of having surrendered to Great Britain or to the world these priceless, these invaluable rights for the maintenance of our dignity and the preservation of our safety. I for one will not believe that he ever intended to commit the American Government to a course so perilous and as I was about to say, so weak and so cowardly.

I desire to fulfill the treaty according to its letter and its spirit as well, and I regret more than I can express that these differences of opinion have entered the minds of Senators. It seems to me that we ought to stand as one man for a construction of this treaty which is not only demanded by its terms but by every consideration of national safety and honor as well.

FROM SPEECH OF HON. WESLEY L. JONES, OF WASHINGTON, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES AUGUST 6, 1912.

Mr. JONES. Mr. President, the United States owns a strip of territory across the Isthmus of Panama 10 miles wide. It is ours by grant from the Republic of Panama; no one disputes our title and no one can dispute it. Over it flies the flag of the Republic representing the sovereignty and proprietorship of the Nation just as it represents that sovereignty and proprietorship over any other territory belonging to the United States. We have established a government. Order is maintained; our courts administer justice; civil rights are enforced, and all the rights and powers of sovereignty are being exercised. Through and across this strip of territory, and wholly within its limits, we are building with our people's money, and will soon have completed, a great canal through which will pass much of the world's commerce.

* *

Some contend, however, that although we bought the territory, built the canal, and own them both, we must use the canal for the benefit of others and to the disadvantage of ourselves and our own people. Is this so? Can we exercise only those rights of a sovereign and of a proprietor that benefit other nations at the expense of our own people and deny them the privileges and benefit which every sovereign and proprietor ordinarily can extend to his own? If I believed that we were limited in our treatment of our own people and our own vessels, as some have contended, I would not discuss the question in open session, but if I felt compelled to advocate such a position, I would do it only in executive session, where no record would be made that could be used against our Gevernment and people in any controversy that may hereafter arise. I do not say this in criticism of those who have publicly discussed and advocated this side of the controversy, but simply as expressing my own views as to the proper action to take. In any controversy that may arise between our Government and a foreign power, where there is room for doubt I will never admit that my Government is in the wrong except within the secret walls of this historic Chamber.

In my judgment, however, we can use this territory and this canal just as we can use any other territory or any other waterway of the country. We can permit our ships and our people to use it and occupy it just as we permit them to use any of our other waterways or territory. This is denied, however, because of a treaty between this Government and Great Britain, under which it is claimed that we can not permit our own people to use this canal except upon exactly the same terms that we allow the people of Great Britain and other nations to use it. The American people are jealous of their rights, but they also hold sacred their promise.

However unfair and however burdensome any treaty solemnly made and ratified may be, it will be sacredly kept until abrogated, and I yield to no one in upholding at any cost the Nation's honor.

Is there any treaty that restricts our power to permit the use of this canal by our own people upon such terms as we see fit to impose? Could any treaty be made that limits and restricts the power and right of the Government to deal with its own people and its own property? In my judgment the treatymaking power can not take away or cede away this right. The Senate and the President can not deprive the United States of any of its rights of sovereignty, and that is what this would be doing. If it be said that this is not ceding away sovereign rights, but it is giving or granting proprietary rights, I say this can not be done by the President and the Senate in the exercise of the treaty-making power. The right to use our canal and the territory through which it runs as we may desire is a property right, and the establishment of rules respecting the use of this canal is the establishment of rules in respect to the property or territory of the United States, and under section 3, Article IV, of the Constitution only "the Congress," and not the Senate and the President, "shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States." Any treaty purporting to make rules and regulations respecting that canal or the territory through which it passes and purporting to restrict its use by the United States is beyond the power of the President and the Senate and not binding upon the Government or the people of the United States. It will not be presumed that an attempt was made to do what there was no constitutional power to do.