when it may be cast aside as unbinding and impracticable. While honor requires the observance of preelection pledges, still what shall be done when these conflict with the obligations of office?

To avoid the dilemma, platform pledges should be few and far between. Which should prevail, duty to a faction, or duty to the state?

CHAPTER XXI.

A BRITISH STATEMENT.

In a former chapter we stated that it was impossible to think that any citizen had taken a course in the repeal of toll exemption in favor of England in preference to his own country.

On June 29, 1914, a statement was made by Sir Edward Grey in the House of Commons which has an important bearing on this subject. It was but justice to Americans that the statement was made and given such world-wide publicity. We print the following from the news columns of the Philadelphia Public Ledger of June 30, 1914, by express permission:

London, June 29.-The repeal of the act exempting coastwise shipping from payment of tolls for passage through the Panama Canal was the subject of a portion of a speech by Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons today. Sir Edward was replying after a general debate on the appropriations for the Foreign Office, and he paid high compliments to President Wilson and the motives underlying his action.

The Foreign Secretary remarked that while a settlement had been reached it had not been entirely free from misrepresentation which might have in it the seed of future mischief. He added:

"It is due to the President of the United States and to ourselves that I should, so far as possible, clear away that misrepresentation. It was stated in some quarters that the settlement was the result of bargaining or diplomatic pressure. Since President Wilson came into office no correspondence has passed, and it ought to be realized in the United States that any line President Wilson has taken was not because it was our line, but his own.

"President Wilson's attitude was not the result of any diplomatic communication since he has come into power, and it must have been the result of papers already published to all the world.

"It has not been done to please us or in the interests of good relations, but I believe from a much greater motive-the feeling that a Government which is to use its influence among the nations to make relations better must never when the occasion arises flinch or quail from interpreting treaty rights in a strictly fair spirit."

Without doubt many Americans were opposed to the exemption of any ships that accepted the services of the canal, and when England objected to the act of 1912, they gave a thorough investigation to the subject and were convinced that exemption was economically and politically wrong; hence the strong contest to have the act repealed.

The English people made their own arguments, while the Americans, likewise, made their arguments at home among themselves. There was no concert of action with any foreign nation, and if any arguments were in harmony with outside arguments it was merely incidental, from the facts and circumstances surrounding the controversy. The opponents of the repeal should have been content with an attack against the arguments, and their overthrow if possible.

Since our system of government has cast upon the citizens a large part of the political and governmental power, they, in any national controversy, take part in the discussion, as they are expresssly authorized by the terms of the constitution.

The canal arguments, internationally, took place between the diplomatic officials of the two nations. The home discussion was a family-a domestic affair. The repeal of the exemption act belonged wholly to Congress and the American people.

It seems strange that some disputants could clearly see that "the canal was built with American money, and the land was bought with American money," yet were unwilling to allow some of those whose property would be charged with a part of this debt, to determine by what economic system this most expensive enterprise should be operated.

The American people have the right to establish, in the first place, the rates for the use of the canal.

They have a right to be heard, by any legitimate course of reasoning, on the question of rates or the exemption from tolls. The ultimate decision, as to whether there can be discrimination in rates would be regulated by a construction of the treaties. But the legal rights under the treaties are so interwoven with the economic question of rates, that it would be impossible to determine the economic problem without reference to all phases of the controversy. They are all necessarily brought into the debate, and are a necessary part thereof.

Toll exemption has already been made a matter of partisan politics and may again be brought forward as platform material and become a live subject for political exposition around the hustings. And when discussion begins, whether before Congress or in a political canvass, there is no place for debate to end, until the whole field has been explored and investigated. This must be the rule in all nations where the power is vested in the voting multitude.

Let us go back in our reverie to Monticello, and rehearse the words of the immortal Jefferson, written to President Monroe October 23, 1823. Speaking of what is since known as the "Monroe doctrine," he said: "One nation, most of all, could disturb us in this pursuit; she now offers to lead, aid and accompany us in it." He discloses this to be Great Britain, and continuing, says: "With her, then, we should most sedulously cherish a cordial friendship, and nothing could tend more to knit our affections than to be fighting once more side by side in the same cause."

Could it be, truthfully said, that on account of the above sentiment, that Jefferson was in any way allied with England against his own country?

Such a conception would be incredible and wholly impossible!

CHAPTER XXII.

REASONS FOR BUILDING THE CANAL.

Many statesmen claim that we built the canal, solely, for our own people and such incidental use as we choose to accord to other nations; that we have all control, full ownership, absolute sovereignty; and we need ask nothing from any other power as to our canal policy. We presume that our motives in building the canal

were:

1. For honor and glory.

2. A determination, that no foreign nation should have prime control, and that we might secure ourselves from being discriminated against by any other operator.

3. To afford our traffic, both domestic and foreign, a short route from ocean to ocean, without a distant trip around Cape Horn.

4. For the profits that might in the course of time come from the operation of such a utility.

5. To move our warships, quickly, from coast to coast, in time of necessity or war.

6. For the often repeated benevolent purpose of benefiting civilization and the advancement of the whole world.

If there were other reasons we are not able to conjecture them. In the beginning, nothing was ever suggested about what the tolls should be or that any ships should be exempt, except in the Panama treaty certain free tolls were given as a part of the purchase money; and might be considered as tolls paid in advance.

The momentous problems were: Where to build,