Page images

the United States and Great Britain on equal terms and should, also, be open on like terms to the citizens and subjects of every other state which was willing to grant such protection as the United States and Great Britain engage to afford.

For the reasons I have given, the aforementioned treaty provisions, whether separately or jointly, do not appear to give any support to the theory that the United States are exempt from the rule prescribing equality for all ships passing through the canal. Nor can anything to the contrary be inferred from the statements made in course of the diplomatic negotiations and parliamentary discussions relative to the purpose and bearing of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.

In the speech made by the Honorable Elihu Root in the Senate of the United States on the 21st of January of this year-a speech which is far above any praise or commendation of mine-the Honorable Senator proved that during the discussion of the treaty in the United States utterances have repeatedly been made in direct support of the theory that the construction to be put on Article 3 of the treaty must be consistent with the actual text of that article, its words to be interpreted in a strictly literal sense.

I beg to refer to the extract quoted by Senator Root from Mr. Blaine's instructions, given in 1881, on the occasion of the opening of negotiations with Great Britain for a modification of the ClaytonBulwer Treaty.

I further beg to refer to the quotations given in Mr. Root's speech from the utterances of Senator Davis in his Report from the Committee on Foreign Relations.

I also refer to the fact, stated in the same speech, that in view of that report the Senate rejected the amendment which was offered by Senator Bard, providing for preference to the coastwise trade of the United States.

I think, however, that this great problem of our day should be considered from a higher point of view.

The ocean is free. It is, from its very nature, exempt from the control of man; all nations, whether great or small, are equal on its


For that reason, the right of navigating the seas appertains to all. Any limitation on the exercise of this right is impracticable. Nor can it be denied that the principle of a free sea agrees perfectly with the interests of all mankind.

However, though man may not be able to bend the ocean to his will, he can assist the benevolent efforts of nature. He can connect the oceans in places where the terra firma raises obstacles in the way of free intercourse and divides the seas from each other. Those are undertakings the greatness and importance of which cannot be measured by reference to the sum of human energy, insight and labor required by their achievement. They are enterprises for the benefit, not of one nation or another, but of all mankind.

It is just and equitable that those who benefit by a giant achievement of this kind should bear their share of the economic sacrifices entailed by the actual construction of the works as well as by their maintenance in future. Nor can any just objection be raised against an arrangement by which the control of the works is entrusted to the Power which has gained undying glory by overcoming the formidable difficulties in the way of the execution of the project. Nor can anything be said against the same Power undertaking to protect the works after completion, in time of peace as in time of war.

The great object of the work, however, very naturally leaves its stamp upon the work. It is natural that the connection established between two oceans should be placed on an equal footing with those oceans with regard to the principle that the navigation shall be free and open to all and ought to be exercised on equal terms for all.

This is a lofty point of view on which all nations may concur. It is the same idea which seems to have united in a common feeling two of the greatest nations of the world when it is stated that, on entering into the convention, they have not only desired to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish a general principle.

The disagreement between the governments of the two countries which are parties to the aforesaid treaty has chiefly manifested itself in respect of certain provisions contained in "An Act to provide for the opening, maintenance, protection and operation of the Panama Canal, and the sanitation and government of the Canal Zone." This Act was signed by the President of the United States on August 24,


In this Act, Section 5, it is provided that

No tolls shall be levied upon vessels engaged in the coastwise trade of the United States,

and further:

Tolls may be based upon gross or net registered tonnage, displacement tonnage, or otherwise, and may be based on one form of tonnage for warships and another for ships of commerce. The rate of tolls may be lower upon vessels in ballast than upon vessels carrying passengers or cargo. When based upon net registered tonnage for ships of commerce, the tolls shall not exceed one dollar and twenty-five cents per net registered ton, nor be less, other than for vessels of the United States and its citizens, than the estimated proportionate cost of the actual maintenance and operation of the canal subject, however, to the provisions of Article 19 of the convention between the United States and the Republic of Panama, entered into November 18th, 1903..

The principle underlying the provisions, here quoted, of the Panama Canal Bill, is, I think, for reasons already given hardly consistent with Article 3 of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.

To exempt from payment of tolls vessels engaged in the coastwise trade of the United States, and to fix the tolls to be paid by ships which are the property of American citizens on another ratio than that which is established for the vessels of other countries do not appear to be easy to reconcile with the regulation of the treaty to the effect that there shall be no discrimination against any nation or its citizens in respect to the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise.

It has been said that the principle of equality of treatment has no reference to the coastwise trade of the United States, which, in accordance with general usage, is reserved to American ships.

The authority of the United States to make a provision in this respect is not, however, incompatible with its treaty obligation to extend to all the ships making use of the canal an equal treatment. A foreign Power can not, on the strength of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, demand for its subjects any right to take part in the coastwise trade of the United States. On the other hand, however, the principle of equality established by the treaty is not subject to any limitation from the fact that it is reserved to each state, with sovereign authority, to issue regulations for the shipping trade of its subjects.

Nor, according to the view here presented, would the rules of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty be incompatible with the sovereign right of states to grant subsidies to their shipping. There is no need, on this occasion, to investigate in detail how the custom of granting shipping

subsidies works out in the different forms which it may adopt. In the very nature of things, subsidies may be granted to the ships of one nation in such a way as to constitute a violation of the principle of the treaty concerning equality. Such would be the case if the subsidies were paid out of the funds constituted by the canal tolls. This circumstance, however, does not affect the general principle that each country must be free to promote the interests of its shipping by such measures as may be thought convenient for the purpose.

There are other questions of a legal nature which are worthy of an investigation, more especially in such an assembly as that which I have the privilege to address. Is the difference that has arisen concerning the consistence of the Panama Canal Bill of such a nature that one of the parties interested is entitled to claim a decision by arbitration?

We all know the treaty of 1908, we know that it provides that differences which may arise of a legal nature or relating to the interpretation of treaties between the two contracting parties and which it may not have been possible to settle by diplomacy, shall be referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration established at The Hague by the convention of the 29th of July, 1899, provided, nevertheless, that they do not affect the vital interests, the independence, or the honor of the two contracting states, and do not concern the interests of third parties.

It has been urged that the canal Act does not fix the tolls, that the proclamation of the President ought to be more closely examined, and that it is still uncertain whether the tolls will injure in their operation British shipping.

It has also been urged that only questions which it may not have been possible to settle by diplomacy are to be referred to arbitration.

Allow me, instead of offering now a direct opinion on this point, to suggest another question: Ought we not to consider these matters in the light of the new situation, of that revolution in the methods of international intercourse which in a near future we shall witness?

That which the nations have been dreaming of for ages, has come true. The earth inhabited by men takes on a new aspect, one tie is cut asunder, but only to give place to a new tie which shall, in a deeper sense of the word, be able to unite the countries. The remotest regions of the world are brought nearer to each other, a new thoroughfare is opened, at which all nations give each other the rendezvous. A new competition sets in, destined, not to afford an

opportunity of a trial of strength, but to aid and facilitate the accomplishment of the tasks which Providence has set the inhabitants of this earth. There is no limit to the progress of which the world is capable; the promotion of progress in the domain of things material as well as in the domain of things spiritual, is the result of the patient coöperation of centuries. In the history of the twentieth century, the accomplishment of the construction of the Panama Canal will form one of the most prominent landmarks, a great nation has added a new link to the mighty chain with which the spirit of solidarity and fraternity has encompassed the globe.

I trust I may be allowed to express a hope that the grand vision which has united all the parties of the American nation in an effort to solve the problem, will remain as powerful as ever when the great work is soon to be handed over in trust to the generations of the future. One more consideration I would urge.

The conscience and the sense of justice of man is not satisfied if the principles of justice and equality which it is acknowledged should govern the actions of isolated communities are not to be applied to the problems of international relations. It is a change in this direction which is the object of modern efforts to promote the development of international law. The history of international law bears testimony to the prominent place held by the United States in this respect. The United States has taken a leading part in the struggle of mankind to ensure that international differences which it has been found impossible to settle by agreement, shall be referred to arbitration. The United States has, by its actions, shown that it does not shrink from laying important disputes with a foreign Power before an impartial tribunal.

The recapitulation of that which it has been my heart's desire to say on this matter shall take the form of a respectful appeal to consider whether the difference that has arisen is of such importance that it may be possible to misjudge the attitude of the United States toward the great interests affected by this problem.

Entertaining, as I do, a very high opinion of those who are at the head of the affairs of this country, I have no doubt that the decision to which the United States will come will be consistent with the lofty views which the world has been accustomed to see this community. constantly urging, in theory and acting up to in practice, whether it is to be done through the adoption of measures which the government

« PreviousContinue »