THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1914.

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON INTEROCEANIC CANALS,

Washington, D. C. The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjournment of April 7, 1914.

Present: Senators O'Gorman (chairman), Thornton, Walsh, Thomas, Owen, Simmons, Brandegee, Borah, Crawford, Bristow, and Perkins.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. There are numerous telegrams stating that the persons desiring to present their views to the committee from the Pacific coast and the Gulf coast can not reach here in time to appear before the committee until the 20th, which will be a week from Monday, and, subject to the approval of the committee, after an exchange of some telegrams, representatives from Louisiana and other points in that section were told that they might be here on the 20th, and they will probably conclude on that day. There is a possibility that some representatives from the Pacific coast will be here toward the end of next week, between Thursday and Saturday.

Senator THOMAS. On page 15 of the report of April 7 I am reported as saying:

Senator THOMAS. To get the matter before the committee, I move that we have open hearings, to begin to-morrow in the Capitol Building, to be limited to the next 30 days, at the end of which time we shall end them.

Senator BRISTOw. That is satisfactory to me.

Senator THOMAS. I suggest the Capitol Building, because it is more convenient for Senators.

Senator BRISTOW. To-morrow will be a little too soon. I suggest the day after to

morrow.

Senator THOMAS. Very well. And the time to be divided between the proponents and the opponents of the House bill.

On page 16, Senator Simmons concluded his statement by saying: Mr. Chairman, I desire to amend the motion of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Thomas] and to limit the hearings to 15 days.

Which motion was accepted. I ask unanimous consent that the construction of the motion as carried is that the time shall be equally divided between the proponents and the opponents of the House bill, and that the hearings be held after to-day in the Capitol Building, so as to accommodate the members of the committee, and enable them to respond to the calls of the Senate.

Senator BRISTOW. Mr. Chairman, I can not understand why we should fix a rigid division of time. It may be that the proponents of the House bill may not want to use seven and one-half days. The opponents of this measure are the ones who are demanding to be

heard and give the reasons why it should not pass. I do not think they ought to be cut off if those in favor of the bill do not see fit to use half of the time. A great many of these people are coming from long distances, and it is a matter of very vital concern to them. We have set apart 15 days for this hearing, and I think we ought to hear those whose interests are so vitally affected.

Senator THOMAS. We agreed, and I think it was the sense of the majority of the members of the committee at least, that that was the motion, so that we are not changing anything that was really effected, and, of course, if it is understood what time these gentlemen shall have before they come there will certainly be no ground for complaint.

Senator SIMMONS. As far as I am concerned, if the Senator from Colorado will pardon me, I think that probably both sides will take up the time, but I think if one side should finish before the time allotted to them expires there ought not to be any objection to that inuring to the benefit of the other side.

Senator THOMAS. The only difficulty which that suggests to my mind, and which makes me hesitate, is that we may not be able to ascertain or tell one side that does not care to use up its allotted time. Suppose, for instance, they should appear after one side had apparently finished its case, with nothing more to be presented, and then the next day others appear from other sections of the country on that side.

Senator SIMMONS. Then I think we all agree that the time should revert to them.

Senator BRISTOw. In all the hearings that I have participated in we have gone ahead and given everybody a chance.

Senator OWEN. The effect of that suggestion is that if one side does not use up all the time allotted to them the other side could use that?

Senator THOMAS. Yes.

Senator OWEN. I have no objection to that.

Senator BRISTOW. I have no desire to be technical.

Senator THOMAS. I am willing to accept that modification to my suggestion.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee seems to be in accord upon that matter. Do you want a formal vote on it?

Senator THOMAS. No.

Senator SIMMONS. Except that it is agreed that that is the understanding.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Norris is here at the invitation of the committee to present some views regarding the amendment he has offered. Senator Norris, the committee will be glad to hear you now.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE W. NORRIS, A SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA,

Senator NORRIS. Mr. Chairman, as suggested, I am here because the chairman of the committee requested of me yesterday that I should come. I am a member of the Committee on Agriculture, and we are in session now, considering the agricultural appropriation bill, and I am very much interested in some amendments pending before that committee and desire to get back there. We are going to try to finish the bill to-day.

I do not consider it important that I should be heard on this amendment that I shall offer, although I would, of course, be glad if the committee would take favorable action on the amendment. Ordinarily it is considered a great deal of an advantage to have a committee adopt your views in the shape of an amendment rather than to offer it on the floor of the Senate.

On this bill, however, con posed only of two sections, both of them very short, I take it that all the Members of the Senate will have views upon all the amendments that will be offered, and perhaps de ided opinions, so it will not make so much difference whether the committee brings the amendment in or whether it is offered on the floor of the Senate.

The amendment which I have given notice that I shall offer is to add a new section to the bill, as follows:

SEC. 3. That the passage of this act shall not be construed as a surrender of the right claimed by the United States Government to regulate the traffic passing through the Panama Canal, by giving to vessels engaged in the coastwise trade of the United States and other vessels of the United States and its citizens either partial or total exemption from the payment of tolls when passing through said canal. The protest heretofore filed with the Government of the United States by the Government of Great Britain against such a construction of the treaty of November 18, 1901, between said Governments, commonly known as the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, is hereby recognized as presenting an international question suitable and proper for settlement by arbitration, and the President of the United States is hereby authorized and directed to begin negotiations with the Government of Great Britain for the determination of said question by arbitration.

Senator NORRIS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment voices my views as to what it seems to me ought to be the action of the Senate on this bill. I am one who favors the passage of the bill, because I am opposed to the economic principle involved in the law which is now on the statute books. I am just as anxious as anybody can be to have the right, however, on the part of the United States Government to favor its own shipping by discrimination, if it so desires, although at the present time I am opposed to such discrimination. So that I do not want to be put in the attitude, while favoring this bill and voting for it, as saying by my vote and my action that I do not believe the United States has the right, if it wants to exercise it, to discriminate in favor of its own shipping.

I concede that on the international question involved, relating to the construction of this treaty, there are two sides to the question, and very good arguments can be made on either side of it. In other words, it is an honest dispute between honest men all over the civilized world as to just what the treaty means, and even though I believed that the passage of the act now on the statute books was a violation of the treaty, I would not want to put my Government in the attitude of not having the right to have that question fairly tried and decided by a proper and disinterested tribunal. And it is for the purpose of saving that right, so that if it is held we have the right to discriminate and want to exercise it, that we can do so, that I have suggested this amendment. I am not going into, and I do not suppose you would expect me to go into, an argument on the economic principle involved in the question of the elimination from tolls of the coast wise service or of other United States vessels engaged in trade with foreign nations.

It seems to me as Americans, regardless of our views on the construction of the treaty, we ought to be willing, and we ought in fact

to be anxious, if we can honestly and lawfully under our treaty rights have complete control as regards regulation, even to the extent of discrimination if we want to exercise it, to put our country in that right if we can. I confess that first on the construction of this treaty, taking the treaty itself without any of the side lights that can be gathered by looking up the construction that was given to it by the men who made it, that I would say that the treaty does not give us the right to exempt our coastwise vessels, but upon a full examination of the entire question and the construction that was placed on it at the time, and the action both Governments took in regard to it, and the conditions that existed at the time the treaty was made, it seems to me that there is grave doubt whether that construction is right, and that possibly the better argument is that we are not doing anything in this discrimination that the treaty will not permit.

But we will concede that that is a disputed question, in which honest men who have carefully studied the matter disagree. That being true, it seems to me when we pass this law we ought to make a claim similar to the one that is included in this amendment that I have offered, in order that we may take advantage of any right we may possess, even though we do not believe we have the right, that we may be mistaken and the other side may be right. We ought to save it at least. It we pass the bill without making such amendment I feel, especially since the message of the President and the debate that has taken place over the country, we will be looked upon as having construed the treaty ourselves and as having said by our action that we have no right to discriminate in favor of our coastwise shipping under the treaty.

Personally, if I was going to discriminate, I would rather discriminate in favor of American vessels engaged in the foreign trade, especially with South American ports, than to discriminate in favor of the coastwise vessels. But under the treaty if we can discriminate as to one we can as to the other. There is no doubt, I think, about that. If we were to pass this kind of an amendment it would show on the face, of it that we had passed the law because at the present time, at least, we are opposed, as an economic proposition, to exempting the coastwise service and American shipping generally from exemption from tolls in passing through the canal, and therefore the other questions involved under the treaty would still be open for discussion, and our action could not be held up in the future as a judgment against us on that proposition.

I believe that is all I care to say.

Senator BRISTOw. Senator, you spoke of it being your opinion that under the treaty we had the same right to exempt American shipping engaged in the foreign trade as in the coastwise trade. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Senator NORRIS. I do not think, Senator Bristow, that is material for this discussion. I would rather not get into a lengthy debate on it, because perhaps no good can come from it. But the question whether the words "all nations" include us is the question in dispute, as I understand it, here in the construction of the treaty. If it does not include the United States, then a vessel engaged in trade between New York and Valparaiso on the West Coast of South America can be exempted just the same as a coastwise vessel. I supposed that