CHAPTER XXIV.

CONGRESSIONAL ORATORY.

The question of the construction of the two treaties, respecting the Panama Canal, were in some phases before Congress for discussion at divers times in 1912, 1913 and in 1914 up to the date of the passage of the act repealing toll exemption.

The arguments made, in favor of exemption, during 1912 and 1913 were largely collected by Joseph R. Knowland of California and printed as a public document under the title "Symposium of views protesting against a surrender of American rights" in the tolls controversy; and which comprises 134 pages. This was the fortified position, behind which, the toll-exemption advocates sought to find protection. The arguments in the "Symposium" were perhaps the popular view in our country in 1912-13.

In 1914 another vista was opened up to our vision. Legal reasoning began to assert itself and many believed that toll exemption had been inconsiderately written into the "canal law." The repeal act was in 1914 brought before Congress with a purpose to determine the very right of the matter-morally, legally, nationally and internationally.

The adverse argument in the House was wholly ineffective against the vast majority of the votes ready to be cast in favor of the repeal of the exemption law. But in the Senate the closeness of the vote gave a great impetus to the arguments for and against the repeal act. Able arguments were made in the Senate by Root, McCumber, Lodge, Cummins, Poindexter, O'Gorman,

Lewis, Borah, Works, Martine, Bristow and many others. Party politics was almost entirely neutralized and rendered inert; it lost most of its cohesive power.

A remarkable feature connected with the Senate proceedings was, that the leader on each side of the controversy came from the State of New York; that Mr. Root, a Republican, was vigorously supporting the repeal of toll exemption; and that Mr. O'Gorman, a Democrat, was energetically opposing the measure. Here is the most convincing proof that the tolls question was not a matter of partisanship and should not have been made such. It was a question deeper and more vital than that; it had reference to world matters and could not be entirely local or domestic. It was wisely decided, disregarding party expediency, and there it rests to-day, as a most correct declaration of national policy.

The speeches made by these two leaders were exhaustive, and comprehended all that was possible to be said on the respective sides of the question. They were serious, thoughtful, and no doubt founded on conviction. But as there was a controversy, out of necessity, both could not be on the winning side.

These speeches were printed by the government as Public Documents, and we print below, extracts from each.

SPEECH OF HON. JAMES A. O'GORMAN.

Mr. O'GORMAN. A bill is now pending before us to repeal the coastwise exemption, but the advocates of the bill do not seem to be in accord as to the reasons why Congress should reverse itself. Some of those who support the repeal are opposed to the exemption on economic grounds; others recognize its economic advantages but believe that the Panama Canal act violates

the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. Others approve the existing law, and while insisting that it does not contravene the provisions of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, nevertheless favor the repeal because the Executive has requested that this action be taken.

The question is an important one and its wise solution will tax the intelligence and patriotism, perhaps the courage and independence, of every Senator. Our action on the pending measure may mark an epoch in the history of the Republic; its influence may be felt by our posterity. Whether we shall deserve their censure or gratitude will depend upon the manner in which we shall meet the responsibility which now confronts us. If we perform our duty as become Senators of the United States and vote according to our judgment and convictions, I believe that no Senator now or hereafter will have to reproach himself with having abandoned his country when her honor and security called for his defense.

The bill comes from the committee without recommendation, a motion to report it favorably having been defeated by a vote of 5 to 9.

Mr. President, I intend to consider briefly the legal, economic, and political aspects of this question. In my judgment, the British claim has neither law nor justice to sustain it. I hope to be able to establish: First, that the exemption of the coastwise vessels constitutes a wise, economic policy, and is not affected by the HayPauncefote treaty; second, that if coastwise vessels fall within the terms of the treaty, the exemption does not constitute a violation thereof; third, that the canal has been constructed on territory over which the United States exercises the power of sovereignty, while the canal contemplated by the treaty was to be built on alien

soil and, therefore, the Hay-Pauncefote treaty is wholly inapplicable.

I shall not at this time attempt to trace the history of the numerous efforts made from time to time during the past century to construct an interoceanic canal. It will be remembered that in 1903 the Republic of Panama ceded to the United States in perpetuity a tract of territory 10 miles wide extending for 40 miles from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Wilson against Shaw (204 U. S., 33), decided that the sovereignty of the United States over this tract, known as the Canal Zone, is the same as over any other part of the United States, and that was the specific concession made by the British Government in its second note of protest. It is part of our country. It is territory of the United States and constitutes part of our coast line. Unaided and alone, the United States built the canal through this zone and thus connected the two oceans. In the prosecution of this vast undertaking the United States has expended over $400,000,000. Its construction by American enterprise on American soil at the expense of the American people is the greatest engineering achievement of this or any other age. Unselfishly we offer its advantages to all the nations of the world. It is estimated that it will cost the United States not less than $5,000,000 annually for the maintenance and operation of the canal, and upward of $10,000,000 annually for its military defense, which, together with $12,000,000 annual interest upon the original investment, will make an annual charge of $27,000,000.

In our legislation two years ago Congress provided that the tolls should not exceed $1.25 per ton, with lower rates for ships in ballast, and it has been estimated that for some years 10,000,000 tons will annually pass

through the canal at an average of $1 a ton, or $10,000,000 annually. The canal will not, therefore, be selfsustaining, and the United States, the owner of the canal, will for a long period be required to suffer an annual loss of upward of $17,000,000, which will be borne alone by the taxpayers of this country. In limiting the toll rate at $1.25 per ton, and in fixing the specific rate at $1.20 under the presidential proclamation, pursuant to the statute, Congress was required to meet the competition of the Suez Canal, now controlled by Great Britain, the toll rates for that canal at the present time being $1.20 per ton. It was not possible, therefore, to fix a toll rate on a basis of securing a reasonable return upon the cost of construction and maintenance.

In the legislation referred to Congress did not discriminate between American and foreign vessels engaged in over-seas trade. American vessels engaged in foreign trade are required to pay the same tolls that are paid by foreign vessels. Congress, however, did provide that American coastwise vessels shall be exempt from the payment of tolls.

The right to make this exemption has been challenged by the British Government, and the claim has been made that the exemption constitutes a violation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. There will be a subsequent reference to the details of this treaty. For the present it is sufficient to state that it is urged on behalf of Great Britain that under its terms vessels of all nations, including American "vessels of commerce and of war," are to be treated alike with respect to toll charges.

The canal referred to in the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty was the same canal described in the ClaytonBulwer treaty, namely, a canal to be constructed at Nicaragua.