Senator THOMAS. I am perfectly willing to stay here two months, but I do not want to stay three months.

Senator BRISTOw. You do not want to get away any more than I do.

Senator THOMAS. It seems to me if we go into the various phases of this question as you have just suggested, we will have to hire substitutes for our fall campaigns in our State.

Senator BRISTOW. I think we all feel the same way.

Senator BRANDEGEE. These Pacific coast representatives will not be able to get here for 10 days to start the hearings.

Senator THOMAS. If they start right off, they can.

Senator BORAH. You do not know anything about the rapidity of the movement out there, Senator Brandegee.

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.

Senator SIMMONS. I want to present to the committee a statement that I have from Senator Owen, who is necessarily absent to-day awaiting the return of his daughter from abroad. Her steamer is delayed because of a storm, and the Senator is unable to be here, but he asked me to present to the committee his objections to unnecessary hearings and delay in the consideration of this bill. Speaking for myself, while I do not object to some hearings, reasonable hearings, I do not think there is any necessity for prolonged hearings. I agree entirely with Senator Brandegee that the hearings upon practically every phase of this question, either in the House or the Senate, have heretofore been pretty full. I think, while it is true, as Senator Bristow said, that more attention was directed in the hearings of this committee to the question of barring railroad ships from the canal than the question of the tolls, yet my recollection is that very considerable testimony was taken with reference to the tolls question. In the hearings before the Alexander committee, I think these economic questions that the chairman of the committee referred to a little while ago were gone into very exhaustively, especially the question that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Bristow] said we ought to take up and inquire into, with relation to the effect of free tolls upon railroads. I think the Senator from Kansas, however, was mistaken in his general statement that that committee found that 85 per cent 85 per cent was controlled either by railroads or by shipping conof the coastwise shipping was controlled by railroads. It found that solidations. I think that is the language used. I can not myself conceive of any phase of this question which would call for exhaustive testimony or exhaustive arguments before the committee. If you take the economic questions, as a general proposition they are very well understood by everybody. It is largely a matter of common knowledge. The details, the statistics, and the data with reference to

the possible effect of the remission of this duty upon the traffic through the canal and upon the railroads may not be so much a matter of common knowledge, but it will not require any great length of ti ne to present to this committee a full and satisfactory statement with reference to those matters. In fact, I do not suppose there is going to be very much controversy with reference to those technical details with relation to the effect of remission of tolls upon the cost of freight. For that reason I can not see the necessity for prolonged hearings; neither can I agree with the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Thomas] that, even taking his view. that there ought not to be extensive hearings, that 30 days is necessary. I believe that in 10 days, or even a lesser time than that, we might hear everything that this committee would care to hear with reference to this matter, in addition to what is already a matter of record.

I do not agree at all with the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Bristow] that we save time by hearing these witnesses, taking oral testimony, as against an examination by the members of the committee of the printed hearings before had. In the first place, as to oral hearings, we have to hold them in the daytime, as a rule, and we all of us have to be here. We have other committee work during the day, and we have other work during the day, and it is inconvenient for us, and will be inconvenient for us, to be here; but we can take the printed hearings heretofore had in discussing this question, read them at night, and study them at odd times. We need not read the whole of it. A long statement which would cover an hour to hear before the committee we could get the substance of in 10 minutes. We all know that in these committee hearings-I have attended a great many of them, not only this committee, but the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Finance-that the matter is strung out, drawn out, questions are asked diverting the witness, and all sorts of collateral discussion and consideration; and especially if there is any disposition or desire for procrastination immaterial questions are injected, discussed, and talked about at great length, and the time of the committee wasted.

Mr. Chairman, I desire to amend the motion of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Thomas] and to limit the hearings to 15 days.

Senator THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I am not at all inclined

Senator SIMMONS. If the Senator will pardon me, I think that is a longer time than is necessary.

Senator THOMAS. My motion was designed to get the matter before the committee, rather than to express my own view in regard to the length of time that should be given. I think that is the maximum.

Senator BRISTOw. This is the 7th of April. Thirty days would run until the 7th of May-that is Senator Thomas's motion-and 15 days would run until the 22d of April.

Senator SIMMONS. Possibly, Senator Bristow, there are some of the parties who desire to be heard who can speak now. We can hear them immediately, but there are some from the Pacific coast who could not get here for several days.

Senator BRISTOW. I should like to suggest, if it would be agreeable to the committee, that we fix the 15 days, with a tentative understanding that in the event it should appear that we had not been

able to give a full opportunity to all the interests, we might run on a few days longer, but in no event later than May 1.

Senator SIMMONS. Senator, my anticipation is that there will be a disposition of these interests to draw this matter out. I have seen it heretofore when special interests have conie here urging for some consideration of their interests that they thought was of importance, and wearying the patience of the committee. I think that is the experience of every committee that has had these hearings. I do not think we ought to leave it to the discretion of the people who come here and want to be heard.

Senator BRISTOW. Of course, I look at this somewhat different from what some other members of the committee do. I think this a great question.

Senator SHIELDS. Senator, would not that be done without any understanding? The committee has full power over these hearings, and if we can not get through in 15 days, we could extend it.

Senator BRISTOW. We might not want it extended beyond 15 days.
Senator THOMAS. In that way you are bound to extend it.
Senator BRISTOW. No; we are not bound to extend it.

Senator THOMAS. I mean the pressure that will be brought here, and particularly those who have come a long distance, will be very hard to resist, whereas if we fix an arbitrary day in advance, then they can not expect it to be changed.

Senator BRANDEGEE. No matter if we put an arbitrary limit on it of 15 days or 30 days, if then the committee wants to take the limit off and go on, the committee can do it at any time and absolutely repudiate this vote.

Senator SIMMONS. I think it would be unwise for us in fixing the limit to do it with the proviso that we would extend it if somebody was here wanting to be heard.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Of course I would not agree to that. I would not have any such tentative understanding at all.

Senator BORAH. It seems to me we ought to fix the limit, but I think 15 days is long enough. There is a vast amount that can be done in the 15 days.

Senator SIMMONS. Undoubtedly.

Senator BORAH. And I am in favor myself of the suggested amendment of the Senator from North Carolina.

Senator BRISTOw. When will the 15 days start?

The CHAIRMAN. April 9.

Senator BRISTOW. The day after to-morrow?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator SIMMONS. Why not start to-day?

Senator BRISTOW. I think that will be too much.

It will be two

or three days before the people who want to be heard can get here. Senator SIMMONS. I do not know whether I am right about it or not, but I suppose some of the people who want to be heard are here now.

The CHAIRMAN. I do not know of any who are here.

Senator BORAH. Let us make it the day after to-morrow.
Senator SIMMONS. That is all right.

The CHAIRMAN. Then, gentlemen, if there is no objection, the rule of the committee will be that hearings are to commence on April 9 and to be concluded within 15 days thereafter.

43756-14- -2

Senator BRANDEGEE. I vote "no" on that, but of course one objection does not change it.

The CHAIRMAN. I will put the question. Those in favor of the motion will say "aye," contrary "no" [putting the question]. (The motion was agreed to.)

The CHAIRMAN. What is the further pleasure of the committee? Senator WALSH. There are two lines of inquiry that it seems to me might very pertinently receive consideration. It is argued as a very substantial reason why this bill should pass that the benefit of it all goes to the Shipping Trust. I regard the value of these hearings to be in the information that they will give to the country and to the Senate with reference to the arguments that are advanced, rather than any effect they might have in persuading members of the committee. That charge has been made. For myself, I am entirely ignorant of the existence of any organization at this time which would seem to me able to control the traffic between the Pacific coast and the Atlantic ports through the canal. If such an organization does exist, I should like to be advised about it. My information about this matter is that the investigation heretofore conducted by this committee did not cover that feature particularly, and I find it a little difficult to imagine that it became a subject of particular inquiry by the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

Secondly, it is advanced by Prof. Emory Johnson-and the idea. is one very well worthy of investigation-that it is next to impossible to differentiate between true coastwise traffic and the over-seas traffic, and in a recent article in the North American he indicates how it is possible to evade all of the conditions, and actually carry over-seas freight from one port to another port and then tranship.

The conclusion to be gathered from the article is that the difficulties in the way are insurmountable, and that it is impossible to so legislate as to keep the two classes distinct. If that is the case, it would perhaps afford a reason why the exemption should be repealed. If it is not the case, it affords abundant reason why additional legislation should be had in order to prevent the evasion of the act by such practices as he suggests are very likely to be pursued.

Speaking for myself, I should like an inquiry directed to both of those matters.

The CHAIRMAN. Having disposed of the time to be allotted to the hearings, what are the suggestions of the members of the committee as to the persons who should be invited to come before the committee? Senator SHIELDS. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have, in all, six bills on this subject before the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator SHIELDS. In order to get the questions clearly before us that we may consider them in an orderly and intelligent manner, and to discharge the duty not in a perfunctory manner, but to give it consideration and make a report in accordance with what seems to be our deliberate judgment, at least, I think we should first consider those bills, and we should hear from the authors, I think. We would thus get the issues clearly before us. That ought to precede any other hearings. As to further hearings, I have no particular suggestions to make, but on general lines I would concur in the suggestion of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Bristow] to hear from some

of the distinguished and able statesmen of this country who have considered this question fully. The former Congress, two Presidents of the United States, and really three now, in his first view of it, have favored the present law. The people of the country have favored it. The proposition now is to reverse and overrule the former action, and it seems to me clearly that the burden of showing the propriety of doing so rests upon those who ask that that action be taken. I think it fair to those that they be allowed full hearings. I would be glad to have Mr. Bryan appear before the committee and give us his reasons for supporting this measure, or any other gentleman who entertains views along those lines.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Do you think that Mr. Bryan would also be glad?

Senator SHIELDS. I would leave that entirely to him. I think, in accordance with his usual courage in expressing his views and his ability in doing so, he would be glad of the opportunity. And I would be delighted to hear from Judge Taft upon this question. I consider him one of the ablest and purest men in this country, and one of the greatest jurists. He has had decided opinions upon this question. I would add to that Secretary Knox, and I would be glad to hear from Mr. Olney on the subject. He is one of the greatest lawyers we have in this Nation, and has views upon this subject. Senator THOMAS. I suppose ex-President Roosevelt will not return from his trip in order to be heard.

Senator BORAH. He will likely be heard from, however.
Senator THOMAS. Yes; but not before the committee.

Senator WALSH. I am going to object, so far as I am concerned, to the prosecution of the inquiries along those lines. I do not believe that this is quite the forum for men to argue this matter upon facts which the world knows. I think the inquiry here ought to elicit facts, to inform ourselves about the facts of the case.

Senator SHIELDS. If the Senator will pardon me, some of the gentlemen whom I have suggested are gentlemen who know more about the facts relating to the treaty and to the causes now for changing the policy of this Government than any other men in this country, and it was with reference to those facts that I suggested we hear them, and not upon any general argument or opinions. are going to form our own opinions when we hear all the facts and the reasons for making this change.

We

Senator BRANDEGEE. Does not the Senator from Tennessee, if that is what he wants, think he can get that better from the man who is responsible for bringing this subject up now, the President, and find out what all the circumstances are?

Senator SHIELDS. That might be so, but that has not been the custom of this country. The President is a gentleman for whom I have the highest respect for his judgment and opinions, but I have always more respect for any man's opinions when I hear the facts upon which he bases them and the reasons which he gives to support them.

Senator BRANDEGEE. The assertions which the President made in his message to Congress were based upon some facts, I assume, which he has not revealed. I did not know but what it would be pertinent to get those facts.