46

66

struction, maintenance, operation, and protection of the canal, this general principle" simply meant that under this treaty the United States was to give all other nations equal terms in connection with the use of this canal.

Those contending that this canal under the Hay-Pauncefote treaty must be open to vessels of all nations, including the vessels of the United States, on equal terms, it seems to me, overlook the essence of the "general principle set forth in section 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, as well as that the canal "shall also be open on like terms to the citizens and subjects of every other State which is willing to grant thereto such protection as the United States and Great Britain engage to afford." Keeping this in mind as the essence of the "general principle" referred to, it seems to me to be absolutely conclusive that under the new treaty the only obligation placed upon the United States by this "general principle" was that the other nations of the world and their citizens should be treated exactly alike in the use of the canal.

It is significant in this connection that the original draft of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, as transmitted to the Senate by President McKinley, obligated Great Britain as well as the United States to maintain the neutralization of the canal under certain rules prescribed in the treaty, and article 3 provided as follows:

The high contracting parties will immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications of this convention bring it to the notice of the other powers and invite them to adhere to it.

This provision was stricken out in the Senate. In view of the fact that England had bound herself to neutral conduct in connection with the canal, she objected to the release of other nations from these obligations.

In connection with the negotiations with reference to the action of the Senate in striking out this article, Lord Lansdowne submitted a memorandum, under date of August 3, 1901, wherein he said:

The omission of the article inviting the adherence of other powers placed this country in a position of marked disadvantage compared with other powers, while the United States would have a treaty right to interfere with the canal in time of war or apprehended war, and while other powers could with a clear conscience disregard any of the restrictions imposed by the convention of 1900, Great Britain alone would be absolutely precluded from resorting to any such action or from taking measures to secure her interest in and near the canal.

While indifferent as to the form in which the point is met, I must emphatically renew the objections of His Majesty's Government to being bound by stringent rules of neutral conduct not equally binding upon other powers. I would, therefore, suggest the insertion in rule 1, after "all nations," of the words "which shall agree to observe these rules." This addition will impose upon other powers the same self-denying ordinance as Great Britain is desired to accept and will furnish an additional security for the neutrality of the canal, which it will be the duty of the United States to maintain.

It will be noted that Great Britain did not feel that she should be bound to neutral conduct in regard to the canal unless other nations also were so bound. This, as I have said before, was the very essence of the " general principle" contained in section 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.

In regard to the suggestion made by Lord Lansdowne that the canal should be free and open to all nations observing the rules adopted by the United States and Great Britain, Mr. Lowther, in a communication of September 12, 1901, said: With regard to the changes suggested by His Majesty's Government, Mr. Hay was apprehensive that the first amendment proposed to clause 1 of article 3 would meet with opposition because of the strong objection entertained to inviting other powers to become contract parties to a treaty affecting the canal. If His Majesty's Government found it not convenient to accept the draft as it stood, they might perhaps consider favorably the substitution for the words "the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations which shall agree to observe these rules" the words "the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these rules," and instead of " any nation so agreeing the words any such nation." This, it seemed to Mr. Hay, would accomplish the purpose aimed at by His Majesty's Government.

To this Lord Lansdowne replied, under date of October 23, 1901:

Mr. Hay has suggested that in article 3, rule 1, we should substitute for the words "the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations which shall agree to observe these rules," etc., the words "the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these rules," and in the same clause as a consequential amendment, to substitute for the words "any nation so agreeing" the words "any such nation." His Majesty's Government were prepared to accept this amendment, which seemed to us equally efficacious for the purpose which we had in view, namely, that of insuring that Great Britain should not be placed in a less advantageous position than other powers, which they stopped short of conferring upon other nations a contractual right to the use of the canal.

95272-12090

Article 2 of the original treaty transmitted to the Senate by President McKinley contained this paragraph:

The high contracting parties, desiring to preserve and maintain the "general principle" of neutralization established in article 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer convention, which convention is hereby superseded, adopt as the basis for such neutralization the following rules, substantially as embodied in the convention between Great Britain and certain other powers, signed at Constantinople October 29, 1888, for the free navigation of the Suez Maritime Canal, that is to say:

In line with the suggestions above referred to, in the final draft of the treaty as sent to the Senate by President Roosevelt, and which was finally ratified, this paragraph reads as follows:

The United States

Not the United States and Great Britain, but the United States-

adopts as the basis of the neutralization of such ship canal the following rules, substantially as embodied in the convention of Constantinople, signed the 28th of October, 1888, for the free navigation of the Suez Canal; that is to say.

In the memorandum submitted by Lord Lansdowne of August 3, 1901, referring to this change, he says:

In form the new draft differs from the convention of 1900, under which the high contracting parties, after agrecing that the canal might be constructed by the United States, undertook to adopt certain rules as the basis upon which the canal was to be neutralized. In the new draft the United States intimate their readiness "to adopt somewhat similar rules as the basis of the neutralization of the canal. It would appear to follow that the whole responsibility for upholding these rules, and thereby maintaining the neutrality of the canal, would henceforward be assumed by the Government of the United States. The change of form is an important one; but in view of the fact that the whole cost of the construction of the canal is to be borne by that Government, which is also to be charged with such measures as may be necessary to protect it against lawlessness and disorder, His Majesty's Government are not likely to object to it.

From these negotiations and from the nature of this treaty as compared with the Clayton-Bulwer treaty it is clear that Great Britain recognized that the “general principle" of section 8 of the Bulwer treaty under the new treaty simply imposes upon the United States the obligation to treat all the other nations of the world equally and without discrimination in the use of the canal. The United States was not only to build the canal or to see that it was built, but the United States alone was obligated to protect it and to maintain its neutrality. England was relieved of all obligations and responsibilities, as well as other nations.

That construction is also borne out by the treaty negotiated between this Government and the Government of Columbia after the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was entered into. In article 17 of that treaty it is provided that the vessels, troops, and munitions of war of Colombia shall go through the canal without charge. It reads:

The Government of Colombia shall have the right to transport over the canal its vessels, troops, and munitions of war at all times without paying charges of any kind. This exemption is to be extended to the auxiliary railway for the transportation of persons in the service of the Republic of Colombia or of the Department of Panama, or of the police force charged with the preservation of public order outside of said zone, as well as to their baggage, munitions of war, and supplies.

Why was that provision put in the treaty with Colombia? I believe it was placed there because under article 23 it was the duty of Colombia, in case there was trouble on the canal, "to provide the forces necessary for such purpose." Article 23 reads:

If it should become necessary at any time to employ armed forces for the safety or protection of the canal, or of the ships that make use of the same, or the railways and other works, the Republic of Colombia agrees to provide the forces necessary for such purpose, according to the circumstances of the case; but if the Government of Colombia can not effectively comply with this obligation, then, with the consent of or at the request of Colombia, or of her minister at Washington, or of the local authorities, civil or military, the United States shall employ such force as may be necessary for that sole purpose; and as soon as the necessity shall have ceased will withdraw the forces so employed. Under exceptional circumstances, however, on account of unforeseen or imminent danger to said canal, railways, and other works, or to the lives and property of the persons employed upon the canal, railways, and other works, the Government of the United States is authorized to act in the interest of their protection, without the necessity of obtaining the consent beforehand of the Government of Colombia; and it shall give immediate advice of the measures adopted for the purpose stated; and as soon as sufficient Colombian forces shall arrive to attend to the indicated purpose those of the United States shall retire.

That is for the purpose of preserving peace and order and protecting the canal. So that was in line with the general principle of the Clayton-Bulwer

48

treaty that the nations with equal obligations should be treated equally with reference to the use of the canal.

Mr. REED. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SIMMONS in the chair). Does the Senator from Washington yield to the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. JONES. Certainly.

Mr. REED. If the view so often expressed here by Senators is correct, that our Government can not permit the free use of the canal by our own vessels or vessels flying our flag because it is barred from so doing by the clause of the treaty providing that all nations shall have the equal use of the canal, giving to that clause the construction that the expression "all nations" includes the Government of the United States, does not the Senator think that that same clause would have barred us from making the treaty we did make with the Government of Colombia, and have we not already violated it?

Mr. JONES. I think so, Mr. President. By no possible construction can it be held that the United States would be violating the "general principle" by giving a preference to her own citizens and vessels in the use of the canal constructed under her "auspices." On the contrary, such preference is expressly authorized by this "general principle," as under it Great Britain and the United States were not bound to allow the use of such canal on equal terms to any except those who would join with them in affording protection to the canal or those who would assume equal obligations with the United States and Great Britain.

It is contended, however, that rule 1 of article 3 prohibits us from giving any preference to our own ships. It must be borne in mind that the rules adopted as the basis for the neutralization of the canal are rules adopted by the United States to insure the neutralization of the canal. It seems to me that in the discussion of this provision in the treaty that point is overlooked. We simply quote the language of the rule itself without quoting the preamble to it, that it is a rule adopted by the United States. They are not rules adopted for the United States or to govern the United States, but they are rules adopted by the United States to be observed by other nations in the use of the canal consistent with its neutrality.

The United States says, not to herself but to the nations of the world, "You may use this canal if you observe these rules."

Rule 1 is 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 of the conditions or charges of traffic or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable. 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.

It is plain to me that this rule refers to nations other than the United States. The United States stands on one side as the maker of these rules. The other nations of the earth are those who stand on the other side and who are to observe the rules and for whose observance the rules are made. This is the natural and ordinary construction to give to this language in connection with the preceding declaration that the " United States adopts" these rules.

The owner of a ferry promulgates rules for the use of his ferry to be observed by his passengers, not by himself, and when he says that "all persons observing these rules may pass his horses and cows over this ferry no one would understand that the term "all persons observing these rules" includes himself and that he would charge himself for crossing his horses and cows on the ferry. If the owner of certain lands puts up a sign "All hunting on these premises is prohibited," no one would contend that he could not hunt thereon. So it is with the language of this rule.

66

It is a rule made by the United States for and under which all other nations or all nations," if you please, "observing" the rules shall be admitted to the use of the canal, so that when the United States says that the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these rules, it is the same as the ferryman saying that "all persons paying him 25 cents" will be transported across the stream on which his ferry operates, and there is nothing in the world that makes it a discrimination against any of these nations to permit our vessels to go through the canal free, while 95272-12090

they pay, any more than it would be for the ferryman to carry himself across without charge.

This rule simply says that all those nations observing the rules laid down by the United States will be treated without any discrimination the one against the other. This is in harmony with the "general principle" contained in section 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. The United States is the only nation upon which any obligations are imposed in connection with the construction, operation, protection, and maintenance of the canal. All other nations are free from any obligations of any kind, and according to that "principle" the nations without obligations are to be treated alike, while the nation with obligations may receive different treatment.

It seems to me that there is no room for argument and no room for construc tion. The language is plain and the meaning is clear, and there is not an American citizen with average intelligence who will take any different view as to the obligations and as to the rights of the United States in this respect. While the meaning of this article and of this rule must be arrived at from the language used, the construction that I have given to it is confirmed by what would result from any different construction. If we are to hold that the United States can show no preference to its own vessels, then we must say to the people of this country that their money has built the canal; they must maintain it and operate it at their own expense; they must protect it from disorder, from lawlessness, and from damage; they must maintain its neutrality at the possible expense of much blood and treasure; and, notwithstanding all this, the vessels of war of the United States can not go through the canal except upon the same conditions, with the same restraints, and the same charges which the vessels of war of any other nation must bear and pay, and that the vessels of citizens of the United States can not go through the canal without paying the same charges that are paid by the vessels of the citizens of other countries who have no obligations and who have been to no expense in connection with the canal. If any other construction is advocated, we must admit to our people that the President of the United States, who made this treaty, and the Senators who ratified it, had no regard for the rights and interests of the people of the United States in framing this treaty. This I will not admit.

A further examination of these rules makes it certain that they were adopted by the United States for the observance of other nations. It is said that the canal "shall never be blockaded." The United States would never blockade its own canal or the canal or ports within its control. This can mean nothing except that the canal shall never be blockaded by nations other than the United States; in other words, by "those observing these rules."

Again, it provides that "vessels of war of a belligerent shall not revictual, except so far as may be strictly necessary, in the canal." Does anyone suppose for a moment that a war vessel of the United States going through the canal could not revictual to any extent desired, even though the United States might be at war with some other nation? Is it possible that there is territory under the Stars and Stripes in which our war vessels can not stop to revictual? I I can not think so. Our people will never admit it.

It is further provided that "the transit of such vessel 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.".

This clearly refers to nations at war with nations other than the United States. The regulations in force would be regulations made by the United States for the purpose of governing the passage of ships of belligerent nations through the canal. It is ridiculous to suppose that a war vessel of the United States would have to pass through the canal any more rapidly or expeditiously than the United States itself would desire.

Again, it is provided "no belligerent shall embark or disembark troops in the canal." It also is provided in rule 5 that

Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not remain in such waters

Referring to waters adjacent to the canal, within 3 marine miles of either end, and which are owned by the United States

longer than 24 hours at any one time, except in case of distress, and in such case shall depart as soon as possible.

Were these rules made to apply to vessels of the United States? Must our war vessels leave our own territory within 24 hours? If so, where will they go? It is too plain to admit of argument that these rules were not made by the United States to govern themselves, but were made to be observed by the nations that were to use the canal on terms of equality. It is unthinkable that we would agree to a treaty that required our warships to leave our own territory within 24 hours, and yet that is what we have done if any other construction is given to this treaty.

Mr. BRISTOW. Mr. President, referring to the matter of the landing of troops, the Senator is aware, of course, that, as a matter of fact, we are now constructing barracks and expect to maintain on the Isthmus and along the canal some two or three thousand American soldiers all the time.

Mr. JONES. Certainly; and we expect and have voted to fortify the canal, and England has not made any objection.

Mr. MASSEY. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Washington yield to the Senator from Nevada?

Mr. JONES. Certainly.

Mr. MASSEY. I merely want to interject the remark that we are fortifying it for offensive and defensive purposes, so far as this Government is concerned. Mr. JONES. Certainly; we are dealing with it just as if it were our own, as indeed it is.

Mr. POMERENE. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Washington yield to the Senator from Ohio?

Mr. JONES. Certainly.

Mr. POMERENE. Mr. President, the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was made before we acquired title to the Panama strip. The Senator's position, as I understand, is that we have the right to fortify the canal and to blockade it, as we see fit.

Mr. JONES. We have the right to do with it as we please. The provision against blockading does not apply to the United States, because no Government would blockade its own ports.

Mr. POMERENE. Very well. In other words, we have the right to control it. When the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was before the Senate for consideration, the Senator from Texas [Mr. CULBERSON] offered the following amendment:

It is agreed, however, that none of the immediately foregoing conditions and stipula tions in sections Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this article shall apply to measures which the United States may find it necessary to take for securing by its own forces the defense of the United States and the maintenance of public order.

I take it there is nothing in this proposed amendment which would be inconsistent with the position now taken by the Senator from Washington. It certainly would have added to the clearness of the contention which the Senator is now making. Can the Senator explain why, in view of at least a certain amount of obscurity which there is in the treaty, this proposed amendment was defeated?

Mr. JONES. Mr. President, I do not concede that there is any obscurity in it. It is just as plain to my mind as it is now worded as it would be with that language in it. I have no doubt that those amendments were voted down by the Senate on the theory that the treaty was plain and that we had that right already, just the same as in the matter of fortifications.

Mr. O'GORMAN. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Washington yield to the Senator from New York?

Mr. JONES. Certainly.

Mr. O'GORMAN. Confirming the view of the Senator from Washington, the statement has been made repeatedly during the discussion of this bill that the amendment referred to by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. POMERENE] was voted down at the time under the belief that there was no need of amplifying the language of the treaty; that the treaty as it stood was susceptible only of the interpretation that is now being argued for by the Senator from Washington.

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.

Mr. TOWNSEND. Mr. President