Page images
PDF
EPUB

hardly amounts to 100,000 people to and fro each year. And, gentlemen, I believe that if these things were thoroughly studied, it would be discovered that their transportation was paid practically by the people in the steerage. If this great business is run, as it should be run, and as it has got to be run, by land and lake and sea and river, then it will be done for the public convenience, for the public security, for the public prosperity, and for that alone.

There is no business in the world to-day which begins to compare with the business of transportation and communication. Somehow it seems to me, gentlemen, that we are at the great crisis of our time, and we whose ancestors formed our Federal Constitution, founded it on the basis of absolute freedom of intercourse between our States, when they established that wonderful Constitution of ours, at that hour the inventors were already providing the mechanical means which were to give to this earth this circulating and nervous system, which was to transform us from being mere hunters and fishers, ever preying each upon the other, to the sons and daughters of God, creators and exploiters of field, forest, and mine, each one of us the complement of the other.

The point I want to present to you is this, that this earth of ours is a sphere, each part of it, by reason of differences of soil and climate. a complement of the other, and each human being upon it, by reason of some God-given quality, the superior of the other. We have broken down these barriers here for what? In order that we may cooperate with each other. Competition is the law of the brute, and we have seen its brutality exemplified in the hearings down here before the Interstate Commerce Commission in the results in the awful condition of things in my dear old State of Connecticut.

Friends, this opportunity is for you now to lead the earth as it should be. We are the United States of America, and it is the fitting thing for us that we should inaugurate the United States of the World, that it should be left to us to see the culmination of the poet's dream when the war drum shall throb no longer and the battle flags be furled in the parliament of man, the federation of the world. And it is the opportunity of an American democracy to inaugurate this beautiful project. Let us have that. Let us open this canal to the free use of all the nations. We have already done a great thing now toward substituting the postal transport for the warship in the act now pending in the Senate and suggested by our friend. My friends, if we are going to have warships, we have got to have transports. Let us use them together and very quickly wars will cease. Suppose my proposition is carried out. Why, gentlemen, the $9,000,000 or $10,000,000 that you are going to spend for military forces at the canal will be absolutely useless, for under such condi tions any nation that should dare for a moment to harm that canal would be made a pariah among the nations.

This is our opportunity, my friends. Democrats and Republicans, one and all, can join together in this magnificant work, and so place us where we belong, the leader of the nations.

The CHAIRMAN. I desire to thank you, Mr. Cowles, for your views The committee will now adjourn.

(Thereupon, at 12 o'clock m., the committee adjourned unt to-morrow, Friday, April 17, 1914, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)

[blocks in formation]

roughly stads
as paid prac
siness is run
d and lake a
onvenience, for
that alone.

begins to cont
ication. Some
t crisis of or t
itution, founde
etween our Sist
on of ours, at
mechanical
d nervous sy
inters and fishes
daughters of

each one of us th

FRIDAY, APRIL 17, 1914.

COMMITTEE ON INTEROCEANIC CANALS,
UNITED STATES SENATE,
Washington, D. C.
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., pursuant to adjournment
of April 16, 1914.

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

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Senator BRISTOW. Mr. Chairman, before we proceed, when Prof. Huebner was here, as I remember-I was looking to see if I could find the statement in the testimony, but I do not I asked him to present a statement as to the combinations he referred to among the coastwise shippers, giving the vessels that belonged to the various combinations, and the parties and interests, the stockholders, so that we might know what companies were concerned in these consolidations and what were not in the consolidations, those that were controlled by the railroads and those that were not. Has he presented any such statement yet?

The CHAIRMAN. No.

this earth of
of soil and climate
upon it, by rest
other. We are
rder that we a
law of the brite
e hearings do
in the results
of Connecticut.
d the earth as t
nd it is the fitting
ed States of th
Imination of the
longer and the
federation of the
in democracy to
it. Let us open
ve already done
port for the war
ed by our friend.
ave got to have
y wars will cease
gentlemen, the
end for military
der such cond

harm that canal
nd Republicans

rk, and so place

for your views djourned unt m.)

Senator BRISTOw. Will the clerk please ask him to make that as complete as possible, and file it with us, so that we may have it to be printed with the hearings?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator BRISTOW. Has Prof. James Brown Scott been invited to come before the committee?

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Senator BRISTOW. I should like to have him called some time before the hearings close.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, he will be called. Mr.
Ring is present and desires to speak.

STATEMENT OF MR. WELDING RING, MERCHANT AND EX-
PORTER, NEW YORK CITY.

The CHAIRMAN. State your name, occupation and residence.
Mr. RING. Welding Ring, merchant and exporter, New York City.
The CHAIRMAN. Will you submit your views regarding the pending
legislation, Mr. Ring?

Mr. RING. I am here to represent the New York Chamber of
Commerce. May I state the position of the New York Chamber of
Commerce, as it has already gone on record?

[graphic]

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

277

Mr. RING. When the bill introduced by Senator Root the year before last, I think it was, to repeal the free-tolls clause in the Panama Canal bill was before the Senate, the committee on foreign commerce and revenue laws of the New York Chamber of Commerce brought in a resolution strongly endorsing the action of Senator Root in introducing this bill. A debate was held upon this resolution of the committee, and as it seemed to be a rather unusually interesting topic, it was adjourned to a second meeting. At the second meeting the debate continued in a very animated way, and a large number participating in it, and as others desired to speak it was decided to call a special meeting to be devoted entirely to the discussion of this Panama Canal tolls bill.

This meeting was called for the 13th day of February, 1913. There were 340 members present out of our membership of 1,500, which is an exceptionally large number, and very great interest was shown at this meeting. The debate was very animated, Mr. Choate appearing in favor of the repeal, with several others, while other numbers opposed it. After a long debate the motion was put by the president of the chamber, with the result that 333 votes were cast for the repeal of the free-tolls clause, and 7 for sustaining it. That, gentlemen, I think, fully demonstrates the attitude of the New York business men, as shown by our chamber of commerce, which we consider fairly represents all the business interests not only in New York City and New York State, but also in a large measure the sentiment of the country at large. That record remains, and I believe it would be indorsed again by a similar meeting at the present time.

Senator BRISTOW. Will you please state who are the officers of the Chamber of Commerce of New York?

Mr. RING. Mr. John Claflin, president; Mr. William A. Nash, J. Pierpont Morgan, Jacob H. Schiff, William D. Sloane, A. Foster Higgins, James Talcott, Philip A. S. Franklin, Otto T. Bannard, Arther Curtis James, John I. Waterbury, T. De Witt Cuyler, Frank K. Sturgis, all vice presidents; William H. Porter, treasurer; and Sereno S. Pratt, secretary.

Senator BRISTOW. Have you a board of directors?

Mr. RING. Not a board of directors. We have a board of trustees for the building, and our regular committees for the various branches of the chamber's work.

Senator BRISTOW. Could you please let us have the names of the board of trustees and the various members of the committees that you speak of?

Mr. RING. Shall I read them?

Senator BRISTOw. Read them, or let them be incorporated in the record.

Senator SIMMONS. In regard to the board of trustees, did I understand you to say they had simply charge of the building?

Mr. RING. The board of trustees have charge of the building, the real estate.

Senator SIMMONS. Is that all their jurisdiction?

Mr. RING. That is practically all the board of trustees have.
Senator SIMMONS. You have no general board of directors?
Mr. RING. We have an executive committee.

Senator SIMMONS. Does that executive committee take the place of a board of directors?

Mr. RING. Practically so. The executive committee is composed of the chairman of each of the regular committees.

Senator BRISTOW. Please state the members of this executive committee.

Mr. RING. The executive committee consists of James G. Cannon, chairman; Frank A. Vanderlip, Welding Ring, Samuel W. Fairchild, Eugenius H. Cuterbridge, Anton A. Raven, Darwin P. Kingsley, John Claflin, William A. Nash, William H. Porter, Alexander E. Orr, and A. Barton Hepburn.

I am giving you these names as at the time this debate took place. Senator BRISTOW. The chamber of commerce adopted a resolution approving the bill of Senator Root for the repeal of the free tolls clause of the canal bill. Upon what ground did they base their objection to giving coastwise vessels free tolls?

Mr. RING. That it was not in accordance with the treaty.

Senator BRISTOW. That was the basis, that it was a violation of our treaty with Great Britain? Did they think it was any more a violation of the treaty with Great Britain to let American domestic commerce go through the Panama Canal free than it was to permit American domestic commerce to enter a port of the United States free, in contravention of the language of the treaty of 1815? Mr. RING. That point was not discussed, Senator.

Senator BRISTOW. Have you given it any study yourself?
Mr. RING. No; not that particular point.

Senator BRISTOW. If we agreed in the treaty of 1815 that the same port charges should be imposed on all English vessels and all American vessels in the ports of the United States and that there should be no difference or discrimination, would you think that that language would include coastwise trade as well as foreign trade?

Mr. RING. I do not see why coastwise should not be under the same regulations as the foreign trade.

Senator BRISTOW. But of course you know that it is not?

Mr. RING. I know that.

Senator BRISTOW. Do you know that the Supreme Court has decided that the language in the treaty of 1815 did not apply to coast

wise trade?

Mr. RING. I do not know that, Senator.

Senator BRISTOW. Well, that is a fact that is undisputed, and has been cited many times. I just wanted to know if the construction of the language of the treaty of 1815 as placed upon it by the Supreme Court of the United States in a suit to test had been brought up and considered by the chamber of commerce in connection with this treaty?

Mr. RING. It was not.

With your permission I will read the resolutions brought in by the committee that were discussed at the chamber's meeting.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Before you do that, let me ask you this: Are you a lawyer?

Mr. RING. No; I am only a merchant.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Have you read the case of Olsen v. Smith, which I presume is the one Senator Bristow has alluded to, as to the construction of the treaty of 1815?

Mr. RING. NO; I have not.

Senator BRANDEGEE. You are not prepared, then, I suppose, to distinguish that case from the point involved in the present treaty? Mr. RING. Not on that point; no, sir. With your permission I will read this:

The CHAIRMAN. You may read it now, Mr. Ring.
Mr. RING (reading):

Mr. Ring, on behalf of the committee on foreign commerce

Senator SIMMONS. Before the witness leaves that branch I want to put into the record an anlaysis of the case to which Senator Bristow has referred, the case of Olsen v. Smith, together with an extract from the decision of the Supreme Court. I will read it.

Senator WALSH. Will you kindly tell us what you are reading? Senator SIMMONS. I am reading from a speech delivered by Mr. Stevens in the House, giving the facts of that case, and then an extract from the decision of the Supreme Court so as to explain what it is. Senator BRANDEGEE. What is the page of the Record you read from? Senator SIMMONS. I will read from page 6685 of the Congressional Record of April 6, 1914. It reads:

CASE OF OLSON V. SMITH.

Texas had a statute requiring compulsory pilotage for all vessels entering its ports, but excepting domestic steam vessels in coastwise trade, as provided by section 4444, Revised Statutes United States. The court held that as to a British vessel coming from a foreign port such exception did not constitute a violation of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States, containing the language "no higher or other duties or charges shall be imposed in any port of the United States on British vessels than those payable in the same ports by vessels of the United States." The reason for such holding was substantially stated in the opinion that it is allowable under such language to consider different classes of vessels-those from foreign ports would be one class and domestic steam vessels in coastwise trade would be another class; and that such treaty was not violated because vessels of the class in the foreign trade were included within compulsory pilotage, while domestic steam vessels in coastwise trade might be exempt from it. This is obviously true, because, under the statute and the reason for the existence of the two classes under the laws as to the compulsory pilotage, they are entirely different.

In the opinion the Chief Justice stated:

"Neither the exemption of coastwise vessels from pilotage resulting from any law of the United States nor any lawful exemption of coastwise vessels creased by the State law concerns vessels in the foreign trade, and therefore any such exemptions do not operate to produce a discrimination against British vessels engaged in foreign trade, and in favor of vessels of the United States in such trade. In substance the proposition but asserts that because by the law of the United States steam vessels in the coastwise trade have been exempt from pilotage regulations, therefore there is no power to subject vessels in foreign trade to pilotage regulations, even although such regulations apply without discrimination to all vessels engaged in such foreign trade, whether domestic or foreign."

DOCTRINE OF CASE.

Thus, under the doctrine of this decision, under the general terms of a treaty, Congress may classify vessels as to their treatment under our navigation laws when such classes are natural, reasonable, and necessary for the proper administration of the laws and the promotion of the commerce covered by the treaty. Accordingly, Congress established classes of vessels with different regulations as to the different classes. Coastwise steam vessels were in one class and exempt from pilotage; foreign and American vessels on foreign voyages were in another class and were compelled to pay pilotage.

The commercial nations of the world make similar classifications and rules, and find it necessary under a reasonable and fair construction of all commercial treaties. This is the substance of the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in the OlsenSmith case and is entirely sound. But this very statement shows that such decision does not apply at all to the exemption of vessels in our coastwise trade from tolls at Panama under the provisions of the Panama Canal treaty. An inspection of the provision of the treaties themselves demonstrates this fact.

« PreviousContinue »