Free tolls means free competition. It means free commerce. All sections of the country will be benefited by the canal, and all sections should bear the burden of its construction and maintenance.

When you say that if you reduce the freight rates on the coast of the United States that the rates in the interior will not be reduced, you might just as well say that if you reduce the level of the water along the edges of a great lake that the interior of the lake will not be reduced. One is to dispute the law of gravitation; the other is to dispute the law of trade. So that while trade will continue between the coasts the people in the Middle West will get lower rates and new markets.

*

Many times in this report in sophomorical language the majority cries out that to give free tolls would be an unjust discrimination and a great injustice to 90 per cent of our coastwise vessels that now run up and down our coasts but will not use the canal. Listen how anxious and solicitous they are about the railroad-owned ships in the coastwise trade:

Ninety per cent of the coastwise ships, busy all the time in interstate business, will never approach the canal at all. Less than 10 per cent of all these coastwise ships will use the canal, making long journeys, charging correspondingly more freight and passenger rates, and making infinitely more money, yet it is selfishly demanded that those few ships for only a few will be needed-shall be given their tolls in the interests of interstate trade, while the 90 per cent rendering service just as valuable in interstate commerce would not participate in the contribution.

If the argument of the majority be true, all the coastwise vessels are now participating in a subsidy. Every coastwise vessel receives a subsidy when it runs into one of our subsidized harbors. Why should not a coastwise ship stop and pay tolls to reimburse the Government for improving the harbors it uses? If remission of tolls is a subsidy, then every vessel that goes through the Soo Canal receives a subsidy. Why should these vessels not stop and remit to the Government the money it has expended to construct this canal? Why should this canal be free and the Panama Canal charge tolls? We have subsidized the Mississippi River and its tributaries in a greater amount than we will expend for the construction of the Panama Canal. And all these many millions have been expended for politics more than for the benefit of navigation. If remission of tolls is a subsidy, then every vessel running on our interior rivers is receiving a subsidy. Why does not some subsidy hater, some railroad despiser, some special-privilege denouncer, some self-proclaimed protector of the people rise and exercise his privileges and his vocabulary in demanding that the Government be repaid this vast subsidy that is given to the 90 per cent of the American vessels now running in our coastwise trade and upon our lakes and rivers?

Every charge that is made on an American vessel in the coastwise trade passing through the canal, whether that charge be great or small, will eventually show itself in the freight rate and will eventually be paid by the American people. The amount of the charge will make no difference in the certainty and the sureness of the result. With a mind that deceives itself with the delusion that a tax, however small, is not a burden upon commerce and eventually borne by the people it is useless to argue. It is worse than a waste of words to attempt to convince anyone who holds such views, for such mind is beyond improvement and has absorbed more than earthly wisdom.

I close this argument as I began. This is the case of the People v. The Railroads. Never since I have been a Member of Congress has there been such a transparent and indefensible attempt to legislate in behalf of any great private interest, without regard to the public welfare, as has been displayed in the bill that has been reported to the House proposing that in the use of the Panama Canal ships flying the American flag shall be taxed the same as those flying a foreign flag. Shall we have competition between the steamship lines running between the two coasts and the transcontinental railroads? Shall our commerce be increased and our freight rates lowered? Shall we have dug the canal for the benefit of the American people who have paid for it and own it and must protect it, or shall we have expended all these millions for the benefit of other nations and for the benefit of the railroads? This is the question that we must answer to the American people by our votes upon this bill. [Applause.]

FROM SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM O. BRADLEY, OF KENTUCKY, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JULY 29, 1912.

Mr. BRADLEY. Mr. President, I deny that the people of the United States have known all the time or know now that our Government has no right to extend any privileges to our commerce which goes through this canal. Had the people of the United States thought that such would be the result, the canal would never have been constructed. They never would have been willing to expend $400,000,000 to build a canal for the joint use of all the nations of the earth in which they had no superior right.

I affirm as the first proposition that under the treaty now in force the Government of the United States has the right to give preference to its own commerce as well as its battleships.

In the second place, I affirm that if this be not true and if the treaty is to be given the strict construction contended for by those who oppose us, that the treaty is an absolute nullity, because by its terms we have endangered the very life of our own country.

In the third place, I affirm that the United States having become the owner of this territory, having become the sovereign therein, for which right they have paid, the United States having bought all the rights and property of the New Panama Canal Co., for which it has paid, not only the canal but the land which adjoins it is the absolute property of the United States, as much so as is Alaska, as much so as is the District of Columbia; and that any question which may arise in regard to these matters is not subject to arbitration, because it is a domestic question, and the United States never has submitted and never will submit the decision of a domestic question to any court of this earth.

In the fourth place, our only duty as to the nations of the world-aside from our own is to give them perfect equality in the use of the canal, to preserve strict neutrality as between them in case of war, and to charge them no more than just and equitable tolls.

In the fifth place, now that the United States has become the sovereign of the country through which the canal passes, our right to control it is purely a domestic right, and any question affecting the same is not the subject of arbitration by The Hague or any other tribunal, but must of right be settled by ourselves. That the changed conditions render the treaty voidable whatever may be its construction.

*

*

*

*

What was the object of the new treaty? I have very serious doubt in view of the changed conditions, the United States building the canal herself with her own money, whether she did not have a right to do so whether the ClaytonBulwer treaty was abrogated or not, because under that treaty England as an independent nation had no right, in view of the Monroe doctrine, to construct the canal. She never had that right, and she has no such right to-day. Therefore she conceded nothing in agreeing to the new treaty. Under that treaty Great Britain expends nothing and incurs no resposibility. What is the responsibility of Great Britain under the present treaty? She does not even agree to stand by the United States, as she agreed to do under the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, as to the persons or company which should construct the canal. Her responsibility under the treaty of 1850 was to guarantee protection to the persons or company building the canal. This she does not undertake under the new treaty. Why? Because the United States did not ask her to do so, and did not desire her to do so. The United States felt that she was able to attend to her own business, take charge of her own property, and while constructing the canal to protect herself without assistance.

Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Kentucky yield to the Senator from Iowa?

Mr. BRADLEY. With pleasure.

Mr. CUMMINS. Let me suggest at this point-I know the Senator from Kentucky will emphasize it during the course of his remarks-that the only agreement or obligation entered into by Great Britain in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was the agreement that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty might be abrogated and the new treaty should supersede it. That is the only promise or obligation contained in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty so far as Great Britain is concerned.

Mr. BRADLEY. I thank the Senator for his suggestion, and quite agree with him in what he has said.

As I have said, Great Britain has not furnished a dollar to build the Panama Canal. It is a matter entirely in the hands of the United States; but, now when the canal has been about completed, we are told that Great Britain objects to the United States managing her own canal, which she has built and paid for with her own money, and objects to us giving our vessels any preference. Great Britain desires to be put on the ground floor with us. She desires to get the benefits of the canal without paying for them. She is like an old man of whom I once heard. He imagined that he was a philanthropist, and he provided in his will that upon his death his herd of cattle should be slaughtered and the product sold to the highest bidder, but, considering his wonderful sympathy for the poor, he provided that the horns, hoofs, and tails should be divided equally among the poor. [Laughter.] That is a fair illustration of the liberality of Great Britain, which comes here after we have built the canal and asks us now to allow that country every privilege which we have ourselves.

In the present treaty Great Britain does not participate in the adoption of the rules for the administration of the canal; but the United States alone adopts the rules, showing that it was clearly considered between the two countries that the United States, being the builder of the canal, was conceded the right to prescribe the rules, and that Great Britain had nothing to do with the matter. As to the enforcement of the rules, Great Britain is not to-day bound under any of the terms of the treaty. In the last instance the concession to Great Britain allowing her participation was merely a matter of gratuity on the part of the United States in carrying out the original intention that the canal should be neutral.

What is meant by neutrality except that the canal shall be neutral territory as to all nations of the earth except the United States? If Great Britain and Japan should go to war, then the United States could prohibit either of them taking advantage of the canal in any way. She could prohibit any nation on earth from doing so as against a belligerant; but at the same time she does not estop herself from the right of self-protection. By failing to insist on a provision allowing her participation in the making of rules for the canal Great Britain conceded that the United Staes alone had the right to make the rules. The United States alone having adopted the rules, it could not be considered for a moment that she included herself in the term "all other nations." It is perfectly plain that she did not include herself, and that the rules which were adopted by her for the nations at large do not apply to her, because there is nothing to indicate anything of the kind.

You will find that there is another change in the last treaty. In the first treaty there was nothing specifically binding on the United States or any other country as to tolls. Now, bearing in mind that the Government of the United States is the owner and the proprietor of the Panama Canal, and that she was to build it, a provision was inserted in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty that the United States will not collect unjust or unreasonable tolls. That was not in the first treaty, because in the first treaty it was provided that the traffic should be open and equal to the world; but now that the position of the United States is fully understood and admitted, she agrees, so far as tolls are concerned as to the commerce of other nations, they shall be just and equitable. Mr. President, I call attention to the further fact that in the first HayPauncefote treaty, while the Unied Sates was given the exclusive right of providing for the regulation and management of the canal, its control was subject to the rules then adopted by both countries. In the present treaty the United States is given exclusive right, without any agreement as to rules provided or to be promulgated by the two contracting parties, but with the sole provision that there shall be entire equality of treatment for all nations and that the charges of traffic shall be just and equitable.

I refer to these matters to show what view Great Britain and the United States took, at the time the treaty was written, of the provision as to tolls. It is a mere concession by the United States, which stands as the mistress of the situation. In view of these changes, the exception added to the first treaty was omitted and was no longer necessary, for the United States reserved the right of self-protection in case of war.

It is perfectly plain that Great Britain recognized the justice of this change. It can not be contended that her diplomats were ignorant of changed conditions. So the agreement was made that the United States was to have exclusive right

to provide for the regulation and management of the canal. Stripped of former conditions, the United States had, first, the right to direct, order, rule, and govern, because all those terms are synonymous with the term used, which is to "regulate." She had the right to direct, govern, control, order, and conduct, for each of those words is synonymous with the word "manage," and those two words "manage" and "regulate" are the words employed in the present treaty as showing the absolute right of the United States.

I must be pardoned for being a little tiresome when I call attention again, to the fact that under the rules jointly agreed to between the two countries in the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty they were to govern the canal. In every contract there must be two parties, and those two parties must agree on something. This treaty is nothing in one sense of the word but a contract-a contract between nations-and, so far as the present rules are concerned, Great Britain does not even agree that they shall be adopted, but the United States, on her own motion, adopts the rules and makes them the basis of operating the canal. What is the expressed reason for this treaty? In the present treaty the expressed reason is that the parties are desirous of facilitating the construction of the canal without impairing the general principle of neutralization established in article 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. What is meant by "neutralization"? That the United States, having now become the controller of the situation, guarantees neutrality, so far as she is concerned, between and among all the nations of the earth, always reserving her own right of self-protection.

It has been said that honor requires that we shall accede to the views of Great Britain. No Member of the Senate holds in higher estimation the honor of his country than do I, and I will add that no Member of the Senate holds higher in estimation the protection and life of his own country than do I; but I affirm that no nation is bound, in honor or otherwise, to destroy herself by any treaty, even if the construction contended for by those who do not agree with me is correct.

The first proposition, if we are to adopt the construction contended for, is that

The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations— Including the United States

observing these rules, on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such nation, or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable.

If we are bound by that, we have no right in case of war to give ourselves any advantage. But that is not the worst part of this treaty by which it is said we are bound. Let us go a little further:

The canal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of war be exercised nor any act of hostility be committed within it. The United States, however, shall be at liberty to maintain such military police along the canal as may be necessary to protect it against lawlessness and disorder.

What does this mean? We must take it at its face value, for we are told that we are governed by this instrument as by bands of iron. What does it mean? That the canal shall never be blockaded, though it may be necessary for us to blockade it for our own self-defense. No right of war shall be exercised. We have no right to take a battleship through that canal in case of war against us in order to protect ourselves, nor have we any right to prevent a battleship from passing through the canal to attack us; nor have we any right to unload munitions of war in the Canal Zone. We can not embark or disembark troops if we should become involved in war with another nation. We can not stop a moment in the canal, except in case of an accidental hindrance of transit, and then the vessel must resume its voyage with the utmost dispatch. What else? The provisions of this article shall apply to whom? It applies to all belligerents. It applies to us as well as everybody else. No vessel shall remain within 3 marine miles of the canal longer than 24 hours. We can not allow our own battleships to remain in these waters longer than 24 hours. What else?

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.

If we were involved in war to-morrow, this canal completed, and our ships were there for the purpose of protecting us from the invasion of a foregin foe,

and some ship of such a foe should come within 3 marine miles of the canal, we would have to wait 24 hours before we could pursue it. In other words, we would be compelled to allow it to escape, although it intended to inflict or had inflicted injury on our commerce or our possessions, because we must stand still 24 hours. O Senators, Senators, what a ridiculous construction! What a comment upon our manhood and intelligence that we have given away our birthright, our freedom, and our safety for less than a mess of pottage, and that we must go hat in hand to Great Britain and on bended knee ask her to agree that we may attend to our own business under our own flag.

*

*

*

*

*

What is the condition of the Panama Canal to-day? Let me read so much of the language of the treaty with Panama as I think is necessary to this discussion.

The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power, and authority within the zone mentioned and described * ** * which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory * * to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power, or authority.

Now, the United States is the sovereign in Panama, having paid $10,000,000 therefor; just as much the sovereign there as she is in the District of Columbia. Suppose a question would arise here about something that was to be done in the District of Columbia. What Senator would be bold enough to contend that we should arbitrate that matter at The Hague tribunal? What has The Hague tribunal to do with our domestic affairs? This is an affair of our own. It is a right which we possess under these treaties and under the laws of our country, and it is a right that we propose to exercise, and not to ask any nation for its consent; nor do I believe there will be any trouble growing out of our actions. England is too wise and, in my opinion, too just to raise any disturbance without the slightest reason to sustain her contention. I am satisfied that this whole controversy will be adjusted at last by a proper diplomacy and not by turning ourselves over to The Hague tribunal, to a court necessarily constituted of the certain nations of the earth, which nations have an interest directly opposed to ours, and in which we could not have the slightest hope for justice.

We seek no trouble. Neither do we retreat from it. We only propose to protect our own territory and our own rights. This country has never failed to protect both. Our fathers did not fail and their sons will not fail. The spirit of American liberty and American manhood exists to-day as it existed in seventy-six, in 1812, and during the War with Spain. That spirit has lived through all these years, and will continue to live as long as our Government shall stand. And by that spirit, coupled with the intelligence and sense of justice of our own people, shall this and all other questions of a similar character affecting the well-being of this country be decided. The United States has never submitted and will never submit to any other nation or court of arbitration any question affecting the authority to govern itself or to control its domestic institutions.

FROM SPEECH OF HON. HORACE M. TOWNER, OF IOWA, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY 17, 1912.

Mr. TOWNER. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the committee on the wisdom and far-sighted statesmanship shown in most of the provisions of the bill submitted. It is because I so greatly appreciate and admire the act as a whole that I regret that I can not assent to all its terms. I am compelled to differ from the committee as to some of the provisions of the bill, but such changes being adopted as I believe the House must after consideration deem wise, I hope the bill will pass and become a law. I am confident that if it does it will be considered as not only one of the most important measures adopted by the present Congress, but one of the great acts of constructive statesmanship of the century, worthy as a piece of statecraft to rank with the completion of the canal as a physical and engineering accomplishment, to the lasting credit and honor of American enterprise and statesmanship. [Applause.]