foreign trade of the United States shall be permitted to enter or pass through said canal if such ship is owned chartered, operated or controlled by any person or company which is doing business in violation of the provisions of the act of Congress, approved July 2, 1890, entitled "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies" or the provisions of sections 73 to 77, both inclusive, of an act approved August 27, 1894, entitled "An act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the government and for other purposes," or the provisions of any other act of Congress amending or supplementing the said act of July 2, 1890, commonly known as the Sherman Anti-trust Act, and amendments thereto, or said sections of the act of August 27, 1894. The question of fact may be determined by the judgment of any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction in any cause pending before it to which the owners or operators of such ships are parties. Suit may be brought by any shipper or by the Attorney General of the United States." *

Approved August 24, 1912.

CHAPTER XI.

REPEAL OF THE EXEMPTION ACT.

While the toll exemption law of 1912 was before Congress and before its passage, England began to question its legitimacy, when compared with the limitations of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. She in a friendly way made inquiries which might be considered a protest.

The discussion continued until Mr. Taft's office expired and was unfinished when President Wilson assumed office. No other nation so far as the public know, except England has filed a protest against the exemption. But it was announced that several of the prominent nations of Europe would not, nationally, take part in the Panama Exposition to be held at San Francisco.

Many people interpreted this to be the result of the passage of the act to exempt our coastwise trade from tolls. The European nations took a very important part in recognizing the independence of Panama and thereby, in their unanimity, Panama became a nation de jure.

No nation at this day and age can live to and for itself. We are in the "Brotherhood of Nations" and are a very important part of the world's civilization. We are obliged to agree and harmonize with the world's highest code of honor; and should in the words of Jefferson have "a decent regard to the opinions of mankind.”

President Wilson meeting trouble in diplomatic adjustment of some international questions, which he did

not disclose, and in order to place such matters in a more favorable situation for our nation, he on March 5, 1914 appeared before Congress and delivered an address asking for the repeal of the toll exemption act, which had become a law under President Taft's administration.

ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT WILSON TO CONGRESS,

MARCH 5, 1914.

"Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, gentlemen of Congress I have come to you upon an errand which can be very briefly performed, but I beg that you will not measure its importance by the number of sentences in which I state it. No communication I have addressed to the Congress carried with it graver or more farreaching implications as to the interest of the country, and I come now to speak upon a matter with regard to which I am charged in a peculiar degree by the constitution itself with personal responsibility.

"I have come to ask you for the repeal of that provision of the Panama Canal Act of August 24, 1912, which exempts vessels engaged in the coastwise trade of the United States from payment of tolls, and to urge upon you the justice, the wisdom, and the policy of such a repeal with the utmost earnestness of which I am capable.

"In my own judgment, very fully considered and maturely formed, that exemption constitutes a mistaken economic policy from every point of view, and is, moreover, in plain contravention of the treaty with Great Britain concerning the Canal concluded on November 18, 1901. But I have not come to urge upon you my personal views. I have come to state to you a fact and a situation. Whatever may be our own difference of opinion concerning this much debated meas

ure, its meaning is not debated outside the United States. Everywhere else the language of the treaty is given but one interpretation, and that interpretation precludes the exemption I am asking you to repeal. We consented to the treaty; its language we accepted, if we did not originate; and we are too big, too powerful, too self-respecting a nation to interpret with too strained or refined a reading the words of our promises just because we have power enough to give us leave to read them as we please. The large thing to do is the only thing that we can afford to do, a voluntary withdrawal from a position everywhere questioned and misunderstood. We ought to reverse our action without raising the question whether we were right or wrong, and so once more deserve our reputation for generosity and for the redemption of every obligation without quibble or hesitation.

"I ask this of you in support of the foreign policy of the administration. I shall not know how to deal with other matters of even greater delicacy and nearer consequence if you do not grant it to me in ungrudging measure."

In pursuance of the President's request the Sims bill was introduced in the House on March 9, 1914; this was a bill simply to repeal the toll exemption part of the law of 1912. The bill was passed by the House on March 31 following by a vote of 247 in favor and 162 against repeal. This vote is taken from the newspapers of April 1, 1914. The bill then reached the Senate on April 1, and was reported out of committee on April 30, without any recommendation. On June 10, what is known as the Simmons-Norris amendment was adopted by the Senate by a vote of 50 to 24; and on June 11, the bill and amendment was passed by a vote of 50 to 35.

Some of the arguments in the House were political rather than legal. Still the repeal went through the House with a bound!

When the bill was presented to the Senate, a different field was opened up. The Senate was supposed to have been closely divided on the repeal question. This alone made it a critical matter and it brought out an entirely different kind of argument and oratory. The Senate is a deliberative body and contains some of the very able lawyers of the country. Impulsive oratory there, could not stand before the close reasoning and analytic dissection made by the clear and cold legal intellect. The discussion covered almost every conceivable legal question that ingenuity could suggest to maintain the respective sides of the controversy. Patriotism to country was brought forward on both sides to influence the decision. The one who favored toll exemption stood on patriotism as a reason to oppose the foreign view of the construction of the treaty; those who opposed exemption came back with the plea that it was the highest patriotism to ones country to induce the nation to observe with honor its duties and obligations under international compacts, so on the face of things all were patriots, and were willing to argue to the fullest extent in the service of their country. It is not believed that any acted through sympathy for England as against their own nation. Some, perhaps, held a firm opinion of our country's duty voluntarily assumed to secure the canal and were seeking to have this performed and there was no sympathy for England or subservience to any foreign power. Party politics made a strong appeal but the wiser policy gained the decision.

All admitted that the canal belonged to America, was obtained with American money and was under