string, bending over it, when he was in a great hurry, and he let go, with the imagination that he had, and the fullness of vocabulary, and for two or three minutes what he said made the air seem full of sulphur. To his great surprise the door had been open and Mrs. Clemens heard him, and her memory was fairly good and she repeated after him the awful oaths that he thought would operate as a vent for his feelings. He was taken aback for a moment, and then what he said to her was this: "My dear, my dear, it is true you have got the words, but you have not got the tune." [Loud laughter and applause.]

Well, that is what I feel about politics. That is not my forte or my sphere. They spoiled a pretty good judge to make a pretty poor politician.

I am greatly honored in meeting here these distinguished statesmen. The eloquent periods in which they pleaded their respective causes before the electors of the Dominion in a recent election, and in which I had the honor to figure [laughter] as a humble subject of discussion, have been written down in the history of the Dominion. Perhaps, in view of that, you will wonder that I dared to come here. [Laughter.] Perhaps you feel as the prisoner did that Lord Justice Fitzgibbon-he was not an American, so I may dare to tell it-told me about. He is dead now, I believe. But he visited at Murray Bay. He was on the court of appeal of Ireland. He told me that when he was a justice of the court of first instance he held an assizes in Tipperary, and that a man was brought before the court indicted for manslaughter. The evidence showed that the deceased had come to his death by a blow from a blackthorn stick in the hands of the defendant, and the doctors in explaining it said that the reason was, in medical parlance, that the deceased had what was called "a paper skull." The jury went on to find the verdict of guilty, and he was brought before the court, and his lordship asked the prisoner whether he had anything to say before judg ment was pronounced upon him. And he said, "No, your lordship, I have nawthin' to say, but I would like to ask wan question, jist wan. "Well," he said, "my man, if you are respectful in the question you may ask it." Said he, "Yer lordship, I would like to ask what the divil a man wid a head like that was doin' in Tipperary." [Loud laughter and applause.] Perhaps you see the application. [Laughter.]

But, strong as the language of the late elections may have been, earnest as the spirit of the contest was, no wound remains and no scar to mar the delightful pleasure of this present occasion, or the friendship which I am proud to claim with the honored leaders of your two great parties. [Loud applause.]

The cordial reception which you have given me in Canada, the gracious and kindly hospitality that I have received from their royal hignesses the Duke and Duchess of Connaught, make me feel that you have not fully realized that I have lost all representative capacity, and that you have forgotten that I can only act and speak for the American people as one of the 90,000,000, and a humble one at that. Indeed, I might even, in view of the result of the late election, add a "d" to the word "humble," and correctly describe my situation. [Laughter.]

I have had occasion to say once or twice in explanation of my position as a college professor that I had such bad luck with the ruling generation that I am now attempting to influence the next generation. [Laughter.] But, however that may be, such pleasure as I have had in being the recipient of this cordial expression of your good will toward the people of the United States, because I was once their chief magistrate, I am sure no one of my fellow countrymen will grudge me as a delightful aftermath of having held that high honor and great responsibility. And I close these remarks with this sentiment to the Dominion of Canada:

May the happiness and contentment of her people, and their loyalty to her mother country and the great Empire of which she is an important part, keep pace in every way with the wonderful material expansion that awaits her! [Prolonged cheering.] The PRESIDENT. Gentlemen, I feel that this occasion is such that I may take the liberty of calling on His Royal Highness as well as the Prime Minister and Sir Wilfrid Laurier to express-so much better than I can possibly do it-your appreciation of what we have just heard.

The CHAIRMAN. Owing to Mr. Choate's illness he has forwarded to me a letter containing some correspondence, which, if there be no objection, I will have inserted in the record and have the clerk read. Senator SIMMONS. I should like to have the letter read. (The letter was read, as follows:)

8 EAST SIXTY-THIRD STREET, April 13, 1914. DEAR SENATOR O'GORMAN: As I am unavoidably prevented from accepting the courteous invitation of your Interoceanic Canals Committee for to-morrow, I avail

myself of your kind permission to submit anything of mine not already published that might throw light on the pending question.

I accordingly, with the express permission of the Secretary of State, submit to your committee the inclosed copies of letters written by me to Secretary Hay between August 3 and October 12, 1901, giving step by step the negotiations between Lord Lansdowne and Lord Pauncefote and myself in regard to the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. These, if carefully perused, will, I think, be found to confirm my views that the clause in the Panama Canal act exempting our coastwise shipping from tolls is a clear violation of the treaty.

With great respect, most truly, yours,

Hon. JAMES A. O'GORMAN, Chairman.

JOSEPH H. CHOATE.

The CHAIRMAN. That letter will go in with the correspondence because Mr. Choate states in the letter that he is at liberty to have it published.

Before we proceed with that, I desire to call the attention of the Senators to the fact that on yesterday

Senator SIMMONS. Senator, before you leave that matter, I wish to supplement that with some additional statements of Mr. Choate.

The CHAIRMAN. The letter and correspondence will be read by the clerk, if there be no objection by any Senator.

Senator THOMAS. Yes, I think it ought to be read.

Senator SIMMONS. Very well. Before that is read, will you permit. me to offer also a letter that I received this morning from Mr. Henry White, inclosing a letter from Mr. Choate?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator SIMMONS. This letter from Mr. White is the result of a telephone conversation I had with him yesterday. I knew that Mr. White was in communication with Mr. Choate about his visit here, and that there was serious doubt about whether Mr. Choate's health would permit his coming here. I called Mr. White up yesterday and asked him if he had anything further from Mr. Choate and he replied to me that he had received a letter from Mr. Choate in which he said that under the advice of his physicians it would be practically impossible for him to come here without injury to his health. And this morning I received the original letter from Mr. Choate to Mr. White.

I also received from Mr. White a letter which I should like also to read into the record, as it adds something in addition to his testimony of the other day, which he says that he inadvertently omitted. He does not qualify it in any way, but discusses a new phase of it.

I will not read Mr. White's letter unless it is required, but I do desire to read Mr. Choate's letter.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Mr. White's letter is to be printed in the record?

Senator SIMMONS. Yes. I desire to read Mr. Choate's letter to Mr. White.

(The letter was read, as follows:)

8 EAST SIXTY-THIRD STREET, April 14, 1914. DEAR HARRY WHITE: I am very much obliged to you for all that you have done for me in the last few days. After my conversation with you on Sunday, I talked with Dr. Draper, and he was very unwilling to have me go to Washington to take part in the hearings to-day, or at any time at present. He thinks I am doing so well that it might prove a serious mischief to disturb my progress and possibly give me a bad setback, so I concluded to give it up and also the meeting of the Carnegie Foundation on Friday, and telegraphed to you as I did on Sunday afternoon.

As I telegraphed to you last night, on receipt of your telegram of yesterday, I wrote to the chairman of the committee, Senator O'Gorman, inclosing to him, by the express

permission of the Secretary of State, a copy of my letters to Secretary Hay between August 3 and October 12, 1901, the same that you have. To my mind they establish beyond question the intent of the parties engaged in the negotiation, that the treaty should mean exactly what it says, and excludes the possibility of any exemption of any kind of vessels of the United States. Equality between Great Britain and the United States is the constant theme, and especially in my last letter of October 2, 1901, where I speak of Lord Lansdowne's part in the matter, and say "He has shown an earnest desire to bring to an amicable settlement, honorable alike to both parties, this long and important controversy between the two nations. In substance, he abrogates the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, gives us an American canal, ours to build as and where we like, to own, control, and govern, on the sole condition of its being always neutral and free for the passage of the ships of all nations on equal terms except that if we get into a war with any nation we can shut its ships out and take care of ourselves."

This was the summing up of our whole two months' negotiation. Very likely the reading of my letters will refresh your recollection as to what you actually heard between Lord Pauncefote and myself.

If Mr. Root has not already seen these letters, I think it may be well for you to show them to him before he completes the preparation of his speech.

I shall look with interest for the report of what you say at the hearing this morning. I am very sorry indeed that I can not be there, but I did not like to take any risks of the return of anything so tedious.

Yours, most truly,

Hon. HENRY WHITE.

JOSEPH H. CHOATE.

(The letter from Mr. Henry White to Senator Simmons is as follows:)

1624 CRESCENT PLACE NW., Washington, April 15, 1914.

MY DEAR SENATOR SIMMONS: You spoke to me yesterday of your desire that Mr. Choate should appear before the Committee on Interoceanic Canals and of your hope that he might be able to do so. From what he had already written me I feared that it would not be safe, as he has been seriously ill for several months, for him to come to Washington now; but the inclosed letter which I received this morning from him, leaves no room for further doubt in the matter.

His letter will also be of interest to you, because of the brief summing up therein, of his negotiations with Lord Lansdowne, which resulted in the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, now in force.

I was sorry not to have had a suitable opportunity yesterday for expressing to the committee my view as to one feature of the question now under its consideration; but I felt that I was only there to answer questions and none of those propounded to me seemed to lead up to the point I should have liked to make.

An idea seems to be widely prevalent throughout the country that by repealing the tolls exemption clause of the Panama Canal act we surrender practically to Eng land all future control over our shipping or our own canal or both. This idea seems to me to be utterly erroneous, as we do not even surrender the right which we have always possessed and should possess just as fully after, as before such repeal, to vote a subsidy (as most other maritime nations of the world do) not only to our coastwise, but to all our shipping, whether engaged in domestic or foreign trade. And, as Mr. Choate says in the inclosed letter we possess the further right, under the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, "if we get into a war with any nation, " to "shut its ships out and take care of ourselves."

Perhaps you may see fit to call attention to these facts in your next speech on the subject in the Senate.

Yours, very sincerely,

HENRY WHITE.

The CHAIRMAN. Before the correspondence sent by Mr. Choate is read the Chair desires to make an observation. On yesterday, in addressing the witness, the Chair stated that he understood that the Commissioner of Navigation, Mr. Chamberlain, had stated while testifying that there would be no difficulty in restricting coastwise ships to strictly coastwise trade. Some of the members seemed to have a doubt as to whether Mr. Chamberlain made that statement or whether they so understood him.

On page 46 of the testimony, under date of April 13, 1914, at the bottom of the page, Mr. Chamberlain was being examined, and the chairman stated:

Would it be practicable to confine our so-called coastwise vessels exclusively to coastwise trade?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Why, certainly; that would be quite competent for Congress. It was upon that statement that the Chair made the statement which it did yesterday.

Senator SIMMONS. Did I understand the words to be that it would be competent for Congress?

The CHAIRMAN. Let me repeat it. It is:

Would it be practicable to confine our so-called coastwise vessels exclusively to coastwise trade?

And the answer was:

Why, certainly; that would be quite competent for Congress.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I want to say that later on I asked Mr. Chamberlain about the same thing and he amplified his ideas extensively on that subject.

The CHAIRMAN. Perhaps he did. I only had in mind the answer he made to the Chair's question.

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, my mental criticism of your statement was not what Mr. Chamberlain said, but what immediately followed and you may be right about that. You say, "They were all agreed that there would be no difficulty in restricting coastwise ships," and so forth. My impression was that there was some division of sentiment about it.

The CHAIRMAN. That may be.

Senator SIMMONS. I think the Chair's statement was that the members of the committee would agree that the statement was made that there would be no difficulty about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, no. I can see that misunderstanding, however, but that is not what the Chair stated. The Chair was referring to what he considered to be an agreement on the part of the witness. It was not intended to reflect the views of any member of the committee.

Senator OWEN. The competency of Congress to pass a rule with regard to the matter I think is one thing, and the practical administration of keeping coastwise traffic separate from traffic that would go by reshipment into foreign commerce is another thing.

Senator SIMMONS. That is the reason why I called the attention of the chairman to the language there that "it would be competent for Congress to do it." Of course I take it that nobody would question the power of Congress to do it, if it were practicable.

Senator OWEN. The competency of an act, and the practicability of the administration of it are two entirely different things, and ought not to be confused.

The clerk of the committee read the following letter from Mr. Choate, with accompanying correspondence, as follows:)

8 EAST SIXTY-THIRD STREET, April 13, 1914.

DEAR SENATOR O'GORMAN: As I am unavoidably prevented from accepting the courteous invitation of your Interoceanic Canals Committee for to-morrow, I avail myself of your kind permission to submit anything of mine not already published that might throw light on the pending question.

I, accordingly, with the express permission of the Secretary of State, submit to your committee the inclosed copies of letters written by me to Secretary Hay between August 3 and October 12, 1901, giving step by step the negotiations between Lord Lansdowne and Lord Pauncefote and myself in regard to the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. These, if carefully perused, will, I think, be found to confirm my view that the clause in the Panama Canal act, exempting our coastwise shipping from tolls is a clear violation of the treaty.

With great respect, most truly yours,

Hon. JAMES A. O'GORMAN, Chairman.

JOSEPH H. CHOATE.

AUGUST 3, 1901.

DEAR COL. HAY: As I am going to Scotland for a few days, I saw Lord Lansdowne yesterday and asked him when he would be ready to talk with me about canal matters. He said not next Wednesday but the next after that; they were losing no time and were getting on very well. He said that you had asked Lord Pauncefote to confer with them and that was what they had been doing and recognized it was better for them to agree among themselves before talking to us. I told him that there was very little time between August and October, especially after the adjournment of Parliament, when everyone was away. He said he fully appreciated this, in fact he hoped and expected to wipe his hands of the whole matter and hand it over to Lord Pauncefote and you. So I am satisfied that they have been preparing a wholly new draft, which will have to be submitted directly to you.

AUGUST 16, 1901.

DEAR COL. HAY: I have your kind letter of the 5th and was much pleased to know that I correctly understood your views about your project of treaty which you sent for my information in your private letter of April 27.

On Tuesday last I had from Lord Lansdowne's hands a copy (printed) of the private memorandum without date which has been sent to you by Lord Pauncefote. At our next interview on the following day he asked me if I had read it and what I thought of it. I told him that I admired the friendly spirit and evident desire to agree which were manifest on the face of the paper. But I told him there were two points which I apprehended you would regard as very debatable. First. His article 3A is much more definite and certain than the eighth article of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and I should anticipate objection on our side on that account. I called his attention to the fact that while the preamble of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty limits the object and subject of the treaty to the Nicaragua route, and the eighth article carefully avoids the use of the word "neutrality" but merely agrees to extend the "protection" of the two governments to other routes, and that in granting such joint "protection" the understanding is that canals by other routes shall be open on equal terms to the subjects and citizens of the two nations and of every other State which is willing to grant the same "protection"- all of which was extremely vague and uncertain, and omitted the "guaranty of neutrality" that wanting to get rid of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty altogether we shouldn't want to make any part of it by a new covenant stronger than it was before. Whereas his new article 3A makes the eighth article a great deal stronger than it was before, and saying nothing about "protection" which is, of course, inapplicable to a canal wholly American, fastens the rules of neutrality of article 3, which he calls "stringent rules," upon all future routes. He said he thought article 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty clearly inferred neutrality. But I said it was only an inference-the word used was "protection."

I know that the "general principle" referred to in the eighth article is recited in the preamble of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty and of your new project and of his amended draft as the "general principle" "of neutralization," but it seems to me there is no reason why we should make it any stronger than it was and define in advance the exact rules to be applied to any future canals. However, as no more than one canal will ever be built, you may not think it worth while to take any such point.

Secondly. I told him that I thought his amendment of the first clause of the third article insisting upon bringing in other nations as parties to the agreement, after the Senate had struck out of the H. P. treaty the article inviting them to come in, would run counter to the very strong conviction in the Senate, sustained as I believe, by an equally strong and general popular conviction, that we ought not to accord to other nations any contract rights whatever in the canal which we were to build and own; that none of them though invited ever came in or offered to come in under the C. B. treaty: that at present they had no rights, that they must be content to rely on our national