protection of the canal it was distinctly stipulated that the rights of the parties would not be affected by any subsequent change of sovereignty of the territory over which the canal was constructed, that is, change of sovereignty after its construction.

At that time, as well as for 50 years before, the contemplated route was through the Republic of Nicaragua. Two years after the adoption of this treaty, we entered into a treaty with the Republic of Panama whereby it conferred upon the United States in perpetuity all the rights of sovereignty possessed by the Republic of Panama over this stretch of land of 40 miles form ocean to ocean. The doctrine is well established in international law that all treaty engagements are necessarily subject to the general understanding that they shall cease to be obligatory as soon as the conditions upon which they were executed are essentially altered.

(Here Senator O'Gorman cited from two text books-one by Hall, a recognized British authority on international law, the other by Oppenheimer, professor of international law at Cambridge University-to sustain the propositions: that neither party to a treaty can make its binding effect depend on other conditions than those contemplated when the treaty was made; and that all governments of the family of nations agree that treaties are concluded under the tacit conditions rebus sic stantibus; and that vital changes of circumstances after the making of a treaty relieve the parties from its further performance.)

ECONOMIC PHASES.

Mr. President, I now desire to make a few observations regarding the economic phases of this legislation.

views of the British advocates? If we entered into a contract such as is claimed by Great Britain, where were the men whose duty it was to protect the rights of the American people? *

There are six rules, and, as I have said, if one applies to the United States all apply. Again the language: "So that there shall be no discrimination against any nation;" if we accept the British interpretation and hold the United States to be one of the "all nations," then we have the absurd situation of prohibiting our country from making charges that will dis"criminate against herself.

Note the words, "the nations observing these rules shall use the canal on terms of entire equality." How can an owner be on terms of entire equality with the mere grantee of a privilege? Where a foreign country fails to observe the rules, its ship will not be permitted to use the canal. Will it be claimed that the United States will be denied the use of the canal if it fails to observe the rules which it establishes?

Who would prohibit the United States from using the canal if it neglected to observe any of these rules? Who could prohibit the ships of the United States from using the canal? Was it ever contemplated by the negotiators that such a contingency could arise? The other nations, however, for whom the United States makes these rules, do stand on an entire equality, and it is to them that the term "all nations" refers. * *

I now invite your attention to my third proposition that treaties do not apply to changed conditions, and that therefore the Panama Canal is not burdened by the provisions of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. It will be observed that the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was adopted in 1901, that it was the expectation of both nations that the canal would be built on foreign soil, and that for the

protection of the canal it was distinctly stipulated that the rights of the parties would not be affected by any subsequent change of sovereignty of the territory over which the canal was constructed, that is, change of sovereignty after its construction.

At that time, as well as for 50 years before, the contemplated route was through the Republic of Nicaragua. Two years after the adoption of this treaty, we entered into a treaty with the Republic of Panama whereby it conferred upon the United States in perpetuity all the rights of sovereignty possessed by the Republic of Panama over this stretch of land of 40 miles form ocean to ocean. The doctrine is well established in international law that all treaty engagements are necessarily subject to the general understanding that they shall cease to be obligatory as soon as the conditions upon which they were executed are essentially altered.

(Here Senator O'Gorman cited from two text books-one by Hall, a recognized British authority on international law, the other by Oppenheimer, professor of international law at Cambridge University-to sustain the propositions: that neither party to a treaty can make its binding effect depend on other conditions than those contemplated when the treaty was made; and that all governments of the family of nations agree that treaties are concluded under the tacit conditions rebus sic stantibus; and that vital changes of circumstances after the making of a treaty relieve the parties from its further performance.)

ECONOMIC PHASES.

Mr. President, I now desire to make a few observations regarding the economic phases of this legislation.

For more than 30 years the transcontinental railroads of the country used their powerful influence and resorted to every device to prevent the construction of an isthmian canal.

I do not believe that there is a Senator in this body who will have the temerity to deny the accuracy of that statement, that for 30 years the transcontinental railroads interposed every conceivable obstacle to the construction of a canal connecting the two oceans. Railroads dread water competition because that means cheaper railroad rates. No railroad ever secured control of a competing water line on this continent without destroying competition. Now that the canal is built, the same malign influence is endeavoring to minimize its service to the public.

It was recently reported by a committee of the House of Representatives that 92 per cent of the vessels engaged in coastwise trade are controlled by the railroads of the country, or shipping consolidations which are operated in defiance of the antitrust laws of the land. If these ships, backed by the power of railroads, were allowed to use the canal there would be an end to competition in transportation because, as Mr. Wilson said in his speech on August 15, 1912, "Railroads will not compete with themselves."

Judge Prouty, and Mr. Lane, now Secretary of the Interior, who were for many years members of the Interstate Commerce Commission, appeared as witnesses before the Interoceanic Canals Committee two years ago and gave it as their judgment, based on their knowledge and experience, that the only effective way to secure competition and prevent the railroads from making the canal a corporate asset was to exclude all railroadcontrolled vessels.

By the act which the pending bill seeks to amend

Congress not only prohibited railroad-controlled vessels from using the canal when in competition with the railroads, but conferred jurisdiction upon the Interstate Commerce Commission to compel railroads in all parts of the country to dispose of their interests in their competing water transportation lines.

It may be argued that proper competition could be secured by a reasonable regulation of rates by the Interstate Commerce Commission, but the regulation of rates can only serve to correct abuses after they develop and oppress the public, while the exclusion of railroad vessels from the canal is an absolute preventive of the abuse.

Moreover, it gives encouragement to independent shipbuilders to construct vessels to engage in the canal trade and thus develop an important American industry.

PARTY PLEDGES.

Those who seek to justify the betrayal of party pledges must invent an excuse or openly confess that the declaration of principles adopted at the Baltimore convention was a mere sham to be used only for the purpose of deceiving the American electorate and not for the purpose of being redeemed honestly. When before did the Democratic Party violate party pledges? When did it repudiate a solemn covenant with the American people?

Unusual care was taken at the Baltimore convention to adopt a platform which could be scrupulously respected by the party and its candidates. To avoid the possibility of the candidates repudiating the platform, or any part of it, the platform, at the suggestion of the leader of the party, although carefully considered and unanimously approved by the committee on resolutions