"all

then that there was any limitation put upon our right to charge such tolls as we pleased upon our own vessels, or that we were included in the phrase nations."

Mr. PAGE. But the point I wish to raise, and especially to call the attention of the Senator from New York to, is that at the time the amendment was being considered Mr. Bard-who, I think, was then a Senator from Californiamoved to strike out article 3 and substitute the following:

ART. III. The United States reserves the right in the regulation and management of the canal to discriminate in respect of the charges of traffic in favor of vessels of its own citizens engaged in the coastwise trade.

This amendment, after discussion before the Senate at that time, was voted down by a vote of 43 to 27. In the discussion, if I remember correctly, it appeared that if we had not done this we could not have made the treaty with Great Britain at that time.

Mr. BRANDEGEE. I do not desire to intrude upon the Senator's time, för I know he is in a hurry. But I intended, at the close of the speech of the Senator from North Dakota [Mr. McCUMBER], to call the attention of the senior Senator from Georgia to page 4 of the views of the minority in the House report on the House bill, where the following is stated:

With further reference to the Bard amendment, we have been granted authority to quote from a letter recently written by Senator Bard, in the course of which he states: "When my amendment was under consideration it was generally conceded by Senators that even without that specific provision the rules of the treaty would not prevent our Government from treating the canal as part of our coast line, and consequently could not be construed as a restriction of our interstate commerce, forbidding the discrimination in charges for tolls in favor of our coastwise trade, and this conviction contributed to the defeat of the amendment."

He states there that "it was generally conceded by Senators that even without that specific provision the rules of the treaty would not prevent our Government from treating the canal as part of our coast line.” Mr. O'GORMAN. That is in accord with the recollection of the Senator from

Mr. WORKS. The Senator from Connecticut has anticipated what I was about to say by reading from the records a statement made by Senator Bard with respect to his amendment and the reason why it was voted down.

I simply wish to say that I have in my hand the original letter of Senator Bard making that statement-that the reason for voting down his amendment was that it was generally regarded by the Senate as unnecessary, and that that construction should be placed upon the treaty irrespective of any amendment of that kind.

Mr. CLAPP. Will the Senator yield to me for a moment?

Mr. O'GORMAN. Yes.

Mr. CLAPP. In answer to the suggestions of the Senator from Vermont [Mr. PAGE], I will say that I think it was quite generally understood then that the reason for voting down the proposition to authorize the fortification in express terms was that under the treaty we had the right to fortify without that particular provision. I know I was here at the time, although I do not recall all of the speeches. But while some of us voted insisting in some instances that these things should be explicit and in others voting with the majority upon the ground that they were covered anyhow, I believe, both with reference to the coastwise trade and especially with reference to the question of fortification, that many of the votes cast against those express provisions were cast upon the theory that without them we nevertheless had the right to do them. Mr. O'GORMAN. That the provisions were unnecessary? Mr. CLAPP. Yes; that they were unnecessary.

[From the Congressional Record, July 20, 1912.]

Mr. LODGE. While I am on my feet, if the Senator will allow me, there is one other thing I should like to say. I said in my remarks a few days ago that my personal view was that we had the right to exempt American vessels from tolls. I did not go into the mater. I took a somewhat active part in the two Hay-Pauncefote treaties, as they are called. I voted against the Bard amendment. I voted against it in the belief that it was unnecessary; that the

* * *

right to fix tolls, if we built the canal or it was built under our auspices, was undoubted. I know that was the view taken by the then Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Davis, who was at that time chairman of the committee. I certainly so stated on the floor. I had that same view in regard to this treaty. I was familiar with the work that was done upon it in London at the time when it was concluded there and finally agreed to, and I was very familiar with it here. Although, as the Senator from Georgia correctly said, the question was not raised at that time, I personally have never had any doubt that the matter of fixing the tolls must necessarily be within our jurisdiction; and when I referred to our going to The Hague as useless I did not mean because our case was not a good one. I meant because in the nature of things we could by no possibility have a disinterested tribunal at The Hague. It would be for the interest of every other nation involved to prevent our fixing the tolls according to our own wishes.

Mr. POMERENE. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from South Carolina yield to the Senator from Ohio?

Mr. SMITH of South Carolina. I yield.

Mr. POMERENE. The Senator from Massachusetts has just expressed a reason for his vote against what was known as the Bard amendment. Can the Senator inform us as to whether that was the general sentiment prevailing at that time among the Senators?

Mr. LODGE. I can only say, Mr. President, that that was the view of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and it was my view; and, while I may be mistaken, I think on that vote the majority of the Senate followed the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. SMITH of South Carolina.

27 to 43.

Mr. LODGE. Yes.

As I understand, the vote was something like

Mr. SMITH of South Carolina. The question of the Bard amendment, to which the Senator refers, was brought up; and on account of its being in executive session, and the debates not being available, I was unable to find any record showing what was the sentiment in that respect.

Mr. LODGE. There is no record that will show that, of course; but I know that was my opinion and the opinion of the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations at the time.

Mr. PERKINS. I wish to state that Senator Davis, of Minnesota, was at that time chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. He was, as is conceded by all, an authority on international law, and took the view, stated by the Senator from New York and that stated by the Senator from Washington. There is no question about it, that the rules we did make were to govern other nations than ourselves.

Mr. JONES. Mr. President, it seems to me it would be a great reflection upon the intelligence and patriotism of Senators who voted against those amendments to accept any different construction.

FROM SPEECH OF HON. HOKE SMITH, OF GEORGIA, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES AUGUST 7, 1912.

I think we may justly insist-I doubt whether it would be successfully controverted-that so far as our coastwise vessels are concerned this treaty does not apply to them. Indeed, in the communication from the Attorney General embodying the views brought to our attention by Great Britain it is stated that upon that subject with proper regulations it is probable that no question by Great Britain would be made. Now, fortifying that view, one that we can logically deduce from article 3, section 1, and the attitude of Great Britain upon it with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Galveston case, in which they held in effect that language of this kind was not applicable to coastwise vessels, that it was no discrimination under language practically similar to the language found in this treaty to extend privileges to

coastwise vessels that were not extended to foreign vessels, we can sustain the provision freeing coastwise vessels from tolls.

That decision squarely sustains the position that the treaty does not apply to coastwise vessels.

I do not express an opinion as to its application to foreign vessels.

*

*

*

I think, however, we are justified in the conclusion, especially in view of the further fact that nearly every nation handles its coastwise business exclusively in vessels of its own, that this treaty did not mean to apply to coastwise vessels. The language used expresses no discrimination as to nations; it expresses no discrimination as to English vessels or French vessels or German vessels; it simply declares that the coastwise vessels may pass through the canal free. Our statutes, like the laws of most other countries, limit the coastwise trade to American vessels. I think we can safely rely upon this decision and the construction to justify the conclusion that we do not invade the terms of the treaty if we permit coastwise vessels to pass through the canal free. I apprehend that no possible question would be raised upon it, unless it were that the effect under the treaty would be to give coastwise vessels of Canada and British America the same privilege.

FROM SPEECH OF HON. JAMES E. MARTINE, OF NEW JERSEY, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JANUARY 22, 1913. Mr. MARTINE of New Jersey. Mr. President, my former vote on the question of tolls on the Panama Canal was the result of my conscientious and deliberate judgment. Notwithstanding the splendid argument of the senior Senator from New York [Mr. Rooт], I am frank to say that I am still unconvinced of any wrong or injustice in my position.

Mr. President, I feel that the Senator from New York was most unfortunate in that part of his remarks where he referred, at least by innuendo, to those who opposed his proposition as "playing to the galleries." No, Mr. President; higher motives prompted my vote on this question. I yield to no man in love and admiration for the lofty sentiments expressed by the Senator from New York. This, however, is not a question of the peace of the world nor of the honor of the American Nation, but it is a question of right and justice to the American people.

The Senator from New York asks, "Are we Pharisees?" No; we are not Pharisees nor hypocrites, but a brave and honorable people demanding our rights. It seems to me that it comes with ill grace for Great Britain even to suggest bad faith on our part, when her whole history has been that of greed and avarice in dealing with the nations of the earth. Read, Mr. President, the story of Great Britain's occupancy of India and of Egypt, and you find it is one long story of commercialism for England, right or wrong.

The Senator calls for arbitration. History tells us that Great Britain's policy has been to arbitrate only with nations stronger than herself. How well I recall a few years ago when that Spartan band, the Boers, in their heroic contest for liberty, prayed and pleaded for arbitration. Humanity the world over joined in that plea; but the ear of Great Britain was deaf to all supplications. Shall we arbitrate this question of our right to regulate the canal we have built and paid for? No; never.

Mr. President, the whole question, I feel, is summed up in this editorial from the London Times of recent date:

If this bill becomes a law, it will prove a little short of disastrous to British shipowners. With their best brains and energy devoted to their work, the United States will now proceed to turn out vessels on a wholesale scale, and, aided by their freedom from Panama Canal tolls, there is little to prevent them from entering with success all those trades in which British shipowners are now the principal carriers.

As I said heretofore when this question was before this body for consideration, I now repeat that I favor free tolls for American craft, both ocean and coastwise, and desire that the tolls for all other vessels of the world be only sufficient to maintain the physical condition of the canal, and that the cost and interest thereon shall be America's contribution to the world. I believe that such a policy on the part of this Government with reference to the Panama Canal would rehabilitate our merchant marine, and that in a few years we would command the carrying trade of this hemisphere.

Mr. President, I stand by my former vote on this question, and will vote "no" on the proposition to rescind our former action,

FROM SPEECH OF HON. JOHN SHARP WILLIAMS, OF MISSISSIPPI, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES AUGUST 7, 1912.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I shall vote for the exemption of the coastwise vessels of the United States, but hope not upon the grounds laid down by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. CUMMINS] in his fourth speech upon the subject. I shall vote for the exemption of the coastwise vessels of the United States upon the ground laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States in Olsen against Smith, in One hundred and ninety-fifth United States, that ground being, in short, that as foreign vessels never had any standing in the coastwise trade at all, any provisions with regard to the coastwise trade can not be a discrimination. It is clear to anybody who can read English that, whether this treaty ought to do it or ought not to do it, this treaty does forbid us to make any discrimination. The Senator from Iowa tells us that other powers will make discriminations by granting their vessels rebates equal to their tolls. Whenever they do, that moment we have the right, under the treaty itself, to put ourselves upon a ground of equality with them by making an equal rebate. I agree with the Senator that if we have no right to make a direct discrimination we have no right to make an indirect discrimination by making rebates; but if other nations do it, as he freely predicts that they will, and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LODGE] freely predicts that they will, then in order to reinaugurate the equality itself, which is the object of the treaty, we would have the right to do it.

I shall vote to exempt coastwise vessels from these tolls, because I think we have a right to do it. I think the principle laid down by the Supreme Court is a correct principle in municipal and in international law.

I stand here, as I shall stand always, I hope, for the principle that the judicial proceedings which have been instituted between man and man under government shall some day become instituted between nation and nation in the entire world. I am willing to arbitrate anything except the life of the Nation, the independence of the Nation, because self-preservation is the first law of nature with a nation as with an individual. We may afford to differ, I think, as to whether we can, without discrimination and without violation of this treaty, exempt coastwise vessels; and I share the opinion of the Senator from Iowa that we may. I think the principle laid down by the Supreme Court is sound in law and in ethics, and would be so held by any self-respecting international tribunal of arbitration; but to serve notice upon the world in advance from the seat of a Senator of the United States that we would go to war, sacrifice our youths, shed men's blood and women's tears, sacrifice our treasure, sacrifice the blood and the treasure of other nations rather than to submit to arbitration a simple little question about dollars and cents of canal tolls is a position against which I wish to protest.

FROM SPEECH OF HON. JOHN R. THORNTON, OF LOUISIANA, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES AUGUST 6, 1912.

Mr. THORNTON. Mr. President, as a member of the Interoceanic Canals Committee, I have attended all of its 21 sittings on this subject save 5, and on those occasions I was with other committees, principally that on Naval Affairs, and I doubt if this attendance record was excelled by any other member of the committee except the chairman, and I have closely followed the discussion in this Chamber from the beginning.

I wish to briefly state my conclusions on two important matters pertaining to the Panama Canal bill, which are productive of great diversity of opinion in the Senate, viz: First, the right of the United States to permit the free use of the canal to any ships sailing under the American flag, while collecting tolls from the ships of all other nations; and, second, whether admitting the right to thus exempt ships sailing under her own flag, it would comport with public policy to extend this privilege to all such ships.

Able arguments in favor of and against the right of control of the United States in this matter have been made on the floor of this Chamber during the

discussion, and to me it seems wonderful that the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, the construction of which has produced such discordant views, a document treating of matters of such great interest to the world in general and to the United States in particular, should have been so drawn that different Senators seem compelled to look at it from such different angles and draw diametrically opposite conclusions from a study of it.

It is the first part of paragraph 1 of article 3 which is the bone of contention, if I may be pardoned for using such a reference to it, and which reads as follows:

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, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such nation, or its citizens or subjects, in respect to the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise.

It is contended by some that this language includes the United States in the term "all nations," and hence precludes her from extending favors to her own citizens or commerce not extended to the citizens or commerce of other countries, while others maintain that the term "all nations" necessarily means all other nations, and does not preclude us from favoring our own people, but only binds us to deal impartially with all other people.

As for myself, I had no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that the United States had under the terms of the treaty the undoubted right to exempt from the payment of tolls all American vessels engaged in the coastwise trade.

It is a well-known legal rule that in the interpretation of a statute its context must be studied and the spirit and object of the law sought for.

We see in the first part of the disputed paragraph that the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of all nations on terms of entire equality; but we also see in the second part of the same paragraph that the end sought to be accomplished by this first part, the spirit and object of the law, as it were, is that there shall be no discrimination against any nation.

Now, it is well known that at the time of this treaty the ships of no other nation were permitted to do business in the coastwise trade of the United States, and that is the law still, and certainly it can not be abrogated by this treaty.

It follows then, that as no foreign ship can operate in our coastwise trade and compete with us in that trade we are not discriminating against such ships by allowing to our own coastwise ships the free use of the canal.

These were the views I expressed in the committee sessions, as will appear by the printed report of the proceedings, and I voted in accordance with them.

FROM SPEECH OF HON. WILLIAM SULZER, OF NEW YORK, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES MAY 21, 1912.

Mr. SULZER. Mr. Chairman, I am an American, and I am in favor of American ships-flying the American flag-going through the American canal free of charge. Hence I shall vote for free tolls for all ships flying the flag of my country.

I want to do something to aid the American merchant marine, and free tolls for our own ships will go far to accomplish what patriotic America hopes to see accomplished ere we adjourn.

We all realize that there is a sentiment, growing stronger and stronger every day, throughout the country in favor of doing something to rehabilitate our merchant marine. This is patriotic, eminently proper, and should be encouraged by every true American.

There is no man in this country more anxious and more willing to enact proper legislation to restore the American merchant marine than myself, but I want to do it honestly; I want to do it along constitutional lines; and I want to do it in harmony with that fundamental principle. of equal rights to all and special privileges to none.

In this connection I must take exception to the remarks of the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. STEVENS] regarding the construction of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. I stand here as chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of this House, having given careful study to that treaty, and to every circumstance connected with it, and I speak advisedly, and for our distinguished Secretary of