it may be worth, but in no court of law would such a question be deemed permissible. Asking for that intent involves a legal conclusion. It might be helpful if Mr. White could tell us of any particular conversation between a British official, Lord Lansdowne, or anyone else, or Lord Pauncefote, or our ambassador. I only make that, however, as a suggestion. If you persist in the question, of course you have a right to.

Senator SIMMONS. I asked the question, Mr. Chairman, with the full knowledge of the fact that this would not be probably a competent question in a court of law, but I had not understood that the committee was sitting as a court and that the strict rules of evidence obtains before the committee. I am aware of the fact that in many of the discussions that have taken place both in the House and Senate with reference to this treaty, Senators have discussed and laid great stress upon the understanding as to the proper meaning of the intent of this treaty by the negotiators. I think what it is argued in the Houses of Congress as being pertinent to a question at issue would surely be proper testimony for this committee to take for the enlightenment of the two Houses of Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, what may be argued in Congress is based upon facts. A statement by this witness as to what was intended would not be regarded as a fact by any person. But, of course, if you desire, the witness may very properly be allowed to answer it for what it may be worth.

Senator SIMMONS. Mr. White, will you please state any conversations which you may have had with reference to this matter with either of the negotiators, and when you have stated those conversations, if you have any distinct views as to what was the understanding by the negotiators as to the intent and purpose of the treaty, and in the respect that I call your attention to, I would be glad if you would state that also.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, perhaps I ought to begin by saying that I was the first negotiator myself, because when Mr. Hay, shortly after he had gone home from being ambassador in London, to become Secretary of State, sent me an official instruction on the subject, and I have never been able to see why it was not published as part of the paper which was communicated by the State Department to Congress, entitled "Treaties, Sixty-second Congress, third session." It is part of the history of the negotiations leading up to the Hay-Pauncefote treaty.

Senator SIMMONS. That was a communication to you from the Secretary of State?

Mr. WHITE. From the Secretary of State to me, I being at that time, chargé d'affaires, the representative of the United States to Great Britain; Mr. Hay having gone home, and Mr. Choate not having become ambassador until several months later.

Senator SIMMONS. That has never been published?

Mr. WHITE. So far as I know it has never been published, although I think Gov. Montague quoted from it in a recent speech in the House of Representatives.

Senator SIMMONS. Have you that document in your possession? Mr. WHITE. Yes; I have a copy, but should not feel justified in showing it without the permission of the Secretary of State. Senator SIMMONS. Will you endeavor to secure that?

Mr. WHITE. I shall be happy to do so. Mr. Hay's instruction began by saying that report would shortly be made by the Nicaraguan Canal Commission as to the feasibility of building a canal, and that public opinion was beginning to turn its attention toward our doing something in that direction; that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty seemed to stand in our way; that some people thought that treaty had become obsolete. I think Senator Morgan's idea was that part of it was practically an alliance with England and therefore ultra vires, and therefore had become obsolete. Mr. Hay, however, wrote me that he thought it much better not to go into that subject at all, but to approach the British Government in a friendly way; to inquire, I think he put it, whether they would not consent to the modification or the abrogation of such parts of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty as stood in the way of our building the canal. I think that was the phraseology, but it can be seen in his dispatch.

Therefore he instructed me to see Lord Salisbury, who was at that time foreign minister and prime minister of Great Britain and, I may add, practically the Government of Great Britain. I lost no time in taking the matter up with Lord Salisbury, who asked me to pay him a visit at his country seat, where he said he thought we could talk more freely and unofficially than at the foreign office. Of course I went, and we had our interview. I read him Mr. Hay's dispatch, with the tenor of which he was much gratified. He said, "Of course, I can not give you an official answer until I have consulted the board of trade, the law officers of the Crown, and other departments concerned. But," he added, "as we are talking as friends as well as officially, I may tell you confidentially just how I fell in the matter and how it will eventually work out, in my opinion. We consider that the canal should be built. We feel that no commercial company can build it, but that one or more nations must do so; that one is better than two or more, and that you are that nation. While, therefore, it will probably be necessary to go through certain formalities, because I have Parliament to consider" (I suppose there is no harm in my repeating this now), "lest they feel that I am knocking under to the United States, if I accept on the spot what you propose, I think that in due course of time we shall consent to the abrogation of such parts of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty as stand in the way of your building the canal, subject, however, to one condition on which we lay great stress, namely, that the ships of all nations shall use the canal, or go through the canal" (I think he said) "on equal terms."

At all events that same afternoon I telegraphed Mr. Hay that I thought the situation promising from his point of view, and I sent a dispatch to the same effect on the 22d of December, 1898, which in due time reached him. It was written rather guardedly, but as I was not justified in quoting what Lord Salisbury had said confidentially, stated that I thought there would be no obstacle to the realization of his wishes in respect to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. In fact, I felt sure from what Lord Salisbury said-though I did not put it in that way-that there would be no obstacle to our building the canal, provided the vessels of all nations should use it on equal terms.

Mr. Hay had also told me to find out whether Lord Salisbury would prefer to have the negotiations go on between him and myself in England, or between Mr. Hay and Lord Pauncefote, who was then ambassador from Great Britain here. And I put the question to

him, or rather suggested that from our point of view it would be better-I did not tell him that--but I thought from my own point of view it would be better, and would save him trouble if the negotiations were conducted over here between Mr. Hay and Lord Pauncefote. Lord Salisbury thereupon said that he would at once telegraph instructions to Lord Pauncefote to take the matter up with Mr. Hay, which Lord Pauncefote did, and the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty was the result. That, I think, was as far as my direct negotiations went at that time, and I heard comparatively little further of the matter until the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty was signed.

I do not remember any conversations with anybody or much being done over in England until the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty was concluded. Then, of course, there came the discussions over here in the Senate and the eventual rejection of the treaty-that is to say, the Senate objected to certain features of the Hay-Pouncefote treaty, very wisely, as I think. The well-known Senate amendments were then presented to the British Government, which declined to accept them, as I had ascertained previously from conversations with different people would be the case. And then there was a certain amount of "feeling," you might call it, on both sides. They thought we wanted a good many things which we did not want and we in this country thought that they wanted things which they did not want. I remember coming over here once or twice using my leave of absence in that way, and talking with different Senators on the subject. I think of all the Senators I communicated with Senator Lodge is the only one still in the Senate. I tried to explain to them as I did to those in authority on the other side of the ocean that neither Government differed very materially from the other in the objects they had in view. Eventually they came to terms and a new treaty was made.

Lord Lansdowne had meanwhile become secretary of state for foreign affairs, succeeding Lord Salisbury, and in his despatch, which I think has been published, rejecting our treaty as amended, he left the door open for new negotiations. Lord Pauncefote by that time. was coming over to England on leave, and Mr. Hay thought it would save trouble if Lord Pauncefote, being thus in close touch with the foreign office, should carry on the negotiations with Mr. Choate, and they took place all that summer, the late summer and early autumn of 1901. As I have previously said, I heard all that was going on between these two negotiators, and had informal conversations with many persons in authority, though none formal and official such as my first with Lord Salisbury. During the entire period of those negotiations and in all of my conversations with Lord Salisbury or with anyone else on either side of the Atlantic, I never heard the subject of our coastwise traffic mentioned. It was always assumed by those carrying on the negotiations-it certainly was by me in my interview with Lord Salisbury-that he meant that our ships should be considered, or rather that the United States should be considered as included in the term "all nations."

Senator SIMMONS. And our coastwise ships?

Mr. WHITE. All ships.

The CHAIRMAN. You are stating now what your understanding is, not what the language was?

Mr. WHITE. No, my understanding. The language was "ships of all nations on equal terms." That was the language used by Lord

Salisbury, which I cabled the same day to Mr. Hay. Mr. Hay had asked Lord Salisbury to remove such obstacles in the ClaytonBulwer treaty as stood in the way of our building the canal, and his reply was that he had no doubt these obstacles would eventually be removed, provided the ships of all nations should go through the canal on equal terms.

Senator SIMMONS. Do I understand you to say you had suggestions from any direction that our coastwise ships were to be treated differently?

Mr. WHITE. Never from beginning to end.

Senator SIMMONS (continuing). Than our foreign ships?

Mr. WHITE. The question never arose, so far as I know. I am quite sure, so far as I am concerned, that I never heard it suggested, much less was any instruction to that effect ever sent to the embassy at London. It simply was considered by me, and I know it was by Mr. Choate, and I am quite sure, so far as I can know anything, by Lord Salisbury, because that seemed to be the point he made-that all ships were to be treated in the same way.

The CHAIRMAN. You stated that you had sent a wire to Mr. Hay? Mr. WHITE. Yes; merely preceding my dispatch, but the dispatch states that too-my written dispatch.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is your dispatch?

Mr. WHITE. It is at the Department of State. I can tell you what it stated. I rather think I have the number of it. My dispatch is No. 613 of December 22, 1898. Mr. Hay's instruction is 976 of December 7, 1898.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Just repeat that, please?

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Hay's instruction was No. 976 of December 7, 1898. Mine in reply was No. 613, of December 22, 1898, I think it

was.

The CHAIRMAN. You are not producing either one of those dispatches?

Mr. WHITE. I do not consider myself authorized to do so without the permission of the Department of State.

Senator SIMMONS. You will do that, if you can?

Mr. WHITE. I can see no objection. It seems to me that they form part of the history of the whole proceedings and I shall be happy to ask the Secretary of State's permission to communicate them to the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. When did Mr. Choate leave the service as ambassador in London?

Mr. WHITE. He left in 1905. I was sent to Italy as ambassador in March, I think, 1905, and Mr. Choate must have left London about May or June. It may have been in June, but I rather think it was May.

I do not know that I can add anything to that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator SIMMONS. I do not desire to ask anything more.

Mr. WHITE. I am entirely at the committee's disposal, to answer any questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you claim, Mr. White, to be an authority on international law?

Mr. WHITE. I do not. My business was purely to carry out instructions, and to endeavor to persuade those in authority in the

countries to which I was accredited, to look at things from our point of view.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know, as a matter of international law, that Great Britain under the treaty of 1815 always insisted that the regulation of her coastwise traffic was not affected in any degree by the treaties made by the United States, under which it was specifically agreed by both nations that there would be a perfect equality of treatment of the ships of both nations in the harbors of each other, and that notwithstanding that Great Britain for more than 50 years extended preferential treatment to her own coastwise vessels, upon the theory that when the word "vessels" is used in treaties it is never contemplated that it embraced coastwise craft? Are you familiar with that? Mr. WHITE. I have heard that said, but if you ask me if I know it as a fact, I do not, because, as I say, I am not a professor of international law. I was not trained as a lawyer. I am merely a diplomatist.

Senator SIMMONS. Mr. White, the chairman has asked you if you were a lawyer and an expert in international law, and you said you were not. Still he asks you a question with reference to certain treaties and the construction of those treaties. I want to ask you if in any of our treaties, except the ones with Nicaragua and Mexico, we have ever excepted coastwise trade from the operation of the treaties providing for equal tolls for the vessels of all nations?

Mr. WHITE. I am not prepared to answer from personal knowledge. I should not consider myself sufficiently an expert to do so without looking it up.

Senator SIMMONS. I will ask you if it should appear that we have made various treaties with various nations for equal treatment with reference to tolls and have made no exception of our coastwise trade until 1884, when in a treaty with Nicaragua we provided for equal tolls for the vessels of all nations, and added the words " excepting the vessels of the contracting parties engaged in the coastwise trade,' would you not infer from that that where there was not an exception of the vessels engaged in coast wise trade in a treaty of that character that coastwise trade was intended to be included, and that the exception in the treaties was for the purpose of excluding the coastwise trade?

Mr. WHITE. As the Senator puts it, I certainly should be of that opinion. But, as I say, I am not an expert on international law. Senator THOMAS. Mr. White, when did you first hear of coastwise vessels or traffic in connection with the Hay-Pauncefote treaty? When did the subject first address itself to your attention?

Mr. WHITE. As far as I can recollect, when this act of Congress came up for discussion. I have also heard of the Bard resolution, which had something to do with it in the Senate.

Senator THOMAS. Yes; that was in connection with the bill as it was finally passed.

Mr. WHITE. I do not think that created any stir at the time. It was voted down.

Senator THOMAS. That was the first time in your experience, in connection with this negotiation, that the specific subject of the coastwise trade obtruded itself upon your attention?

Mr. WHITE. Absolutely. I never heard it mentioned before in any way, shape, or form.