economic slope, such a time as he referred to would easily see 1,300,000,000 bushels of wheat per annum. They would have 60,000 trainloads of wheat to get into the elevators of Vancouver and to transport again on Pacific ships. Bringing in a train every 30 minutes, it would take four years to get one year's crop into Vancouver and unload it, and they would have waiting around somewhere on the side tracks something like 800 trains more for the next year. In other words, to handle such a crop it would require railway and terminal facilities for a trainload of wheat about every 7 minutes in the elevators and docks of Vancouver.

"It meant that had the canal been finished and had there been proper dock and harbor facilities at Vancouver to handle it this canal would have meant a clear gain to the farmers of Alberta alone of about £4,000,000 on the crop of 1912. It was easy to see not far hence for the farmers of Alberta and Saskatchewan a free gift from this canal of something in the neighborhood of £50,000,000 a year in freight rates saved.”

ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC OF THE CANAL.

In stating that more than half of the anticipated traffic of the Panama Canal would be trade strictly between foreign countries in which the United States is to have no share, I had in mind especially the exchange of imports and exports between nations by which nations parties to the exchange thrive; by which their lines of productive activity give employment to their labor and capital, increase and prosperity to their inhabitants, with all the gain in moral, mental, and physical well-being which comes to a nation whose people are steadily and happily employed-I had these things in mind at the moment rather than the carrying trade-the ships by which this exchange is effected and the national colors which those ships will display. To my regret, in the carrying trade to be opened by the Panama Canal between the west coast of South America, for example, and the Continent of Europe, the United States will also have no part. The lion's share of that carrying trade, under existing conditions, will be conducted by British ships.

I do not intend to burden the Senate with any statistics, nor is it my purpose to quote from the voluminous correspondence relating to the Panama Canal. In the many able speeches which have been made in both branches of Congress, and from all points of view during the discussion of the last few years, such information has already been fully set forth, and I could merely add one more interpretation or construction of official correspondence to the many already before the Senate. I would, however, ask your attention to one very simple computation. The first cost of the canal with its accessories and of operation during its first year will be in the neighborhood of $400,000,000. Over one-half of the anticipated trade through the canal will be, as I have stated, trade strictly between foreign countries, in which the United States is to have no share. So, over $200,000,000 of our investment we may set down to pure philanthropy from the strictly commercial point of view. Of this trade between foreign nations one-half, at least, and probably more, will be carried on in British ships, so that of our outlay of $400,000,000, the immediate and undisputable beneficiary, at least to the extent of $100,000,000, will be ships under the red ensign.

I wish here and now distinctly to disclaim any hostility against England or any desire to bring into this discussion any considerations which in any way would violate the warning of Washington, in his Farewell Address, against "permanent inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others."

In all our differences and discussions with England which have come under my notice-the Alaska boundary controversy, also fisheries limitation treaties and other treaties covering disputed questions, and as a Member of the Senate, and especially as a member of the committees which have had to deal with these differences and disputes-I have found the representatives of the British Government fair men, moderate in the presentation of the views of their Government and animated by the desire to secure an amicable and just settlement of differences which necessarily from time to time arise in the relations of neighboring nations.

IMMEDIATE GAIN TO GREAT BRITAIN OF $100,000,000.

The immediate beneficiary of $100,000,000 of our investment will be British ships engaged through the canal in trade between countries foreign to us.

In 1875 Great Britain paid £4,000,000, say $20,000,000, for its immense block of shares in the Suez Canal, which up to that time had cost much less than $100,000,000. It does not seem to me, therefore, quite in accord with the fitness of things that the British Government should allege undue discrimination on the part of the United States in its own favor in the legislation which we have enacted.

I have, of course, read the notes in which the British Government has expressed its views, and I find in them none of the vehement denunciation, none of the imputations of bad faith and national dishonor, no trace of the passionate insistence that one side in this controversy is altogether right and the other side is altogether wrong which have characterized the discussion on the subject at times in Congress, and even more the discussions in the public press. I find in these notes a candid, straightforward recognition of the fact that there is a difference of opinion as to the construction in actual administration to be put upon certain phrases in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty.

We have all along been aware of such differences, and it seems to me that we should be very cautious before we put ourselves irretrievably in the attitude of affirming that we are altogether right or altogether wrong.

In the general division of the Panama Canal trade which we have thus far considered-namely, the exchange of imports and exports exclusively between foreign nations, carried exclusively in foreign ships, and constituting, as estimated, over one-half of the business of the canal-we have more than met all the obligations of the broadest humanity.

THE UNITED STATES HAS PUT $400,000,000 IN THE CANAL. We have invested over $400,000,000 for that purpose, and we have fixed a rate of tolls so low as to fall short of the estimated expenses of operating the canal and all its appurtenances, the maintenance of the necessary armed force, and proper sanitation, without any provision for a sinking fund to meet the original obligation.

This is a splendid gift to mankind.

49046-13560

COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES.

The second great division of trade through the canal will be the trade between the Atlantic and Gulf ports of the United States and foreign ports in the Pacific Ocean, and trade between the ports of our Pacific States, Alaska, and Hawaii and foreign ports on the Atlantic.

This trade has been roughly computed at about 35 per cent of the anticipated trade through the canal, measured by the tonnage of ships passing through the locks.

In all the benefits that accrue from the exchange of imports and exports between nations the United States will share so far as this branch of trade is concerned. And how has the canal legislation treated it? On terms of absolute equality with no discrimination as between other nations or as between other nations and ourselves. Congress, in enacting the canal legislation, has treated this branch of trade precisely in accord with the principle of maritime reciprocity which has been the guiding principle of our commercial and maritime policy for a hundred years and is identical with the maritime policy of the world.

THE TARIFF IN RELATION TO THE CANAL.

This is not the time to enter into a discussion of the merits or demerits of the policy of discriminating duties, imposts, or other charges, but I can not refrain from suggesting that the paragraph in the recent tariff act proposing a discriminating reduction in the duties on cargoes brought in American ships furnished much better ground for protest than does the Panama Canal act of 1912, and that a rare opportunity to affirm the sanctity of treaty obligations was lost when the House of Representatives passed unhindered a section so plainly in violation of treaty obligations that the Senate with little discussion speedily sought to correct it.

Subsection 7 of paragraph J of section 4 of the UnderwoodSimmons tariff provides:

J. Subsection 7. That a discount of 5 per cent on all duties imposed by this act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels admitted to registration under the laws of the United States: Provided, That nothing in this subsection shall be construed as to abrogate or in any manner impair or affect the provisions of any treaty concluded between the United States and any foreign nation.

Unlike the Panama Canal legislation which is under review in the present discussion, this section of the tariff law owes its existence entirely to the responsible political majority in both branches of Congress and to the national administration which was consulted in the preparation of the Underwood tariff. I presume that the subsection was intended to be a fulfillment of the following plank in the Democratic national platform:

Merchant marine: We believe in fostering by constitutional regulation of commerce the growth of a merchant marine, which shall develop and strengthen the commercial ties which bind us to our sister Republics to the south, but without imposing additional burdens upon the people and without bounties or subsidies from the Public Treasury.

Whether this plank is a "little plank" or a big plank, whether its meaning was understood at the time or was not understood by those who voted for it, and whether it will be necessary to take another poll of the delegates to the Baltimore convention to find out whether this plank should be lived up to or abandoned, I am not in a position to state. This much, however, is a matter of public knowledge. The Attorney General has

held that the subsection consists of mere words-of sound and nothing further. In brief his ruling is:

The 5 per cent discount to American vessels only, which was the primary object of the subsection, can not be given without impairing the stipulation of existing treaties between the United States and various other powers, and consequently the subsection, by the express terms of the proviso, is inoperative.

The Secretary of the Treasury, accordingly, has declined to enforce this part of the act.

The Board of United States General Appraisers, which is equally with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General a part of the responsible administration and is charged, I believe, specifically with the administrative decision of matters relating to the tariff, over a month ago decided as follows: We conclude that subsection 7 of paragraph J of section 4, tariff act of 1913, should be enforced according to its letter.

That dutiable goods imported in vessels admitted to registration under the laws of the United States should be conceded a 5 per cent discount from the duties provided for in the other parts of the statute. That the most-favored-nation clauses in treaties with foreign countries are not applicable to the questions at issue here, as subsection 7 does not extend any special favor to any particular country, but is an offer or promise by the United States to importers, wherever residing. for the benefit of American shipping, with incidental benefits to the importer; that it is not gratuitously given in any sense of the word, but is in consideration of the necessary trouble and expense incumbent upon the shipper who selects American vessels, and the enforcement of the law does not abrogate or in any manner impair or affect the provisions of any treaty.

That the more specific commercial treaties here in question are not self-executing; they are executory; and the question of their application is a political one and not within the jurisdiction of the courts.

There can be no doubt whatever that should this ruling of the Board of General Appraisers be enforced by the Treasury Department protests of discrimination would be filed by all the great maritime nations with which we are in treaty relations.

OUR FOREIGN RELATIONS.

The subject covered by this paragraph of the tariff has to do exclusively with foreign trade and foreign relations. I am at a loss to understand, therefore, why those who are keen for our scrupulous regard for our international promises-and in that regard I yield to no one-should have begun with a matter involving solely our coastwise trade, which to the minds of many of us appears to be a purely domestic concern. Before them is a larger matter of foreign trade involving indisputably our commercial relations with foreign powers which have been regulated for nearly a hundred years by treaty in accord with a uniform policy of maritime reciprocity. This issue is squarely before the national administration and the responsible majority in Congress. Has Congress been asked to repeal this section? Has a choice been made between the attitude of one part of the administration that the section is an empty and meaningless jumble of words put forth in the hope that it would delude men into the belief that the Baltimore convention platform had been fulfilled, and the attitude of another part of the administration that we are at entire liberty in the face of 30 treaties to discriminate in favor of American ships "in consideration of the necessary trouble and expense incumbent upon the shipper who selects American vessels "?

THE BALTIMORE PLATFORM.

I have profound respect for the President of the United States and for the Senators who are ably supporting his views

49046-13560

and reaffirming their own views on the subject of the Panama Canal toll legislation, enacted with the approval of the last national administration, but I must confess that they seem to me to be "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel" so long as the discriminating duty provision in subsection 7 of paragraph J of section 4 of the Underwood tariff remains on the statute books. If that section is a jumble of words, let it be repealed and take its place with the other discarded lumber of the Baltimore platform. If, on the other hand, the section is real, vital law, "fostering by constitutional regulation of commerce the growth of a merchant marine," then let it be enforced. If it is not enforced because the administration believes that its enforcement would violate 20 treaties or more, and with real reason give offense to those nations with whom we wish to maintain friendly intercourse, then let us have a frank avowal of the fact, and a prompt repeal of the subsection would follow without admonition from the President. At all events, it strikes me that it would be more seemly before we remove the "mote" in the Panama Canal act of 1912 to extract the "beam" from the Underwood-Simmons tariff measure.

THE DISAPPEARING AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE.

Sixty-one years ago, in the summer of 1853, I was a sailor boy at $7 a month on board the square-rigged American ship Golden Eagle, loaded with cotton from New Orleans, in the harbor of Havre, France.

The Golden Eagle was built at Kennebunkport, in my native State of Maine, and I can assure you she was a sailing ship of which the American of that day or of this might well have been proud. I recall that at that time there lay in that great French harbor docks 12 full-rigged American ships, loaded not only with the products of our own country, but some of them with the products of the remote parts of the world. There were but two British ships in the harbor at that time, and it is pleasant for me to recall that a favorite air of the military bands of this great French seaport was the Star-Spangled Banner, played in honor of the kind of ships and the sort of men with which the United States was conducting its commerce with our sister Republic. Before I was 18 years old I had made six voyages to Europe and one to California around Cape Horn on merchant ships flying the American flag. During my lifetime I have been closely identified with the American merchant marine in every capacity from that of a cabin boy and seaman on the sailing ships of years ago to a part owner in a considerable fleet of American steamships on the Pacific coast.

Lest some one outside the walls of the Senate Chamber may think that in my words and vote on this bill I am moved by personal interests, I take the liberty of stating that before I came to Congress, 21 years ago, I divorced myself from all business interests which could in any way be affected by congressional legislation, excepting that general legislation which relates to the whole country. My interest in the subject of the merchant marine, however, is unabated. In my own experience I have come to realize the value of a merchant marine in the promotion of foreign trade, and more particularly its inestimable value to the Nation as an element of the national defense in time of war.