American control, but when it came to offering the service and use of the canal to the general travelling public another question was interjected and it was vital. Many very able men believed that a canal to be owned by America, to be locked up by America, would be altogether out of harmony with the purchase and the enormous outlay. They believed that the canal was intended for use, for general use and that there should be no favoritism even if there had been no binding treaty conditions. Some even believed that toll exemption would be an imposition on our government after it having spent such an enormous sum of money and with untold millions yet to be expended in the near future.

The main arguments in favor of maintaining the exemption were:

1. By the repeal we are bowing down to England. 2. The exemption is necessary in order to control the railroad rates.

As to the first, it is impossible to think that any substantial citizen citizen would would purposely decide to favor England as against his own country except his country was clearly in the wrong. It is the belief that in a short time this argument will be forgotten and no one will be found willing even to suggest it. It cannot possibly be true.

As to the second argument: There can be no need of toll exemption to regulate the railroads for the reason that the Interstate Commission and 48 State Utility Commissions have the railroads entirely in leash and under perfect subjection; hence water competition is most absolutely not needed for any such purpose. The canal commercially is needed as a time-saver and as a means of transporting heavy goods, cheaply.

There were many other auxiliary arguments made

why coastwise ships should be exempted and our nation should do as she pleased about the home rates. One argument was strongly urged and it was this: We have sovereignty over the canal and are beyond control as regards the operation thereof. Legal conclusion cannot always be founded on the claim of sovereignty. Sovereignty cannot overthrow a clear legal compact based on a proper consideration. The question in such cases is not what the sovereign power is, but what did the sovereign promise to do and perform?

Our nation had sovereignty enough to legally make the treaties and the amount thereof can in no way increase or reduce the obligation. The ill-spent time on the sovereignty argument was in every sense a futility. We believe that if a nation by binding compact pledges itself to another nation, it to that extent places itself under control of that sovereign.

It may be an effective argument, when discussing rights between a subject and his nation, to make use of the high-sounding word sovereignty; but it cannot be more than "sounding brass" when arguing with another sovereign nation. One sovereignty may have power to neutralize the sovereignty of another by the mere force of favorable circumstances. One nation may grant transit through its territory to another in full sovereignty, or it may charge the grant with any condition or limitation at pleasure. The compact in its entirety determines the degree and measure of the sovereignty.

Another suggested argument was: That the canal is domestic territory and our trade through it would be interstate traffic; hence, why should a foreign nation have any control over it? The canal is not wholly domestic, but it is in many ways conceded to be international. How could we have so much diplomatic negotia

A

tion and contention about a purely domestic canal? domestic waterway would be private so long as it was not dedicated to the world's use, thereafter it would be international.

Another argument urged most faithfully was: That giving our coastwise ships free passage through the canal would build up a lagging industry and would aid business in general and give the consumer lower prices. The operation would be this: The nation would donate tolls to aid a "class of business;" the money donated would come from the national treasury; so the aid would be national cash. If donated tolls were a thing essential to national prosperity why not go further and donate money to aid in building ships and operating them. If the nation is to be a public benefactor as regards the coastwise trade, where shall the benefactions begin and end? Who will be able to determine the question? Shall it be a subsidy of half tolls, all tolls, or a direct subsidy of one-half the cost of ships and tackle? Why any economist could so precisely figure it out that the amount of tolls should be the precise amount that the government should donate to the coastwise trade is a mystery "past finding out." It must have been on the theory that here was the opportunity and a convenient time to secure what was possible. It was evidently not founded on any system of mathematical calculation. It was simply "we want it and expediency ought to grant it to us."

Another captivating suggestion was: Millions of dollars are annually spent in dredging rivers and no tolls are charged for their use; then why not exempt our ships from canal tolls? In order for the argument to be effective the rivers and the Panama Canal should be parallel cases. There is no analogy except that ships sail through both.

Sailing through water does not always create a correct analogy. Some waters are private, others are public. Some are national, others international. Some channels are gated while others are thrown open and dedicated to the world's commerce. It is general for Congress to dredge only public streams although it was once charged that large sums were politically spent in dredging navigable streams in mountain districts.

The greater part of the expenditure for present dredging is in opening great tidal channels from 35 to 40 feet deep. This is not required for coastwise trade but for foreign ships; and these do not compete with the railroads. These river highways are dedicated freely to the use of all without favor or distinction and in entire harmony with the practice of other nations over their national rivers. What would the world think if we permitted our ships to sail our rivers free, and at the same time charged tolls to foreign ships? There would surely be retaliation and perhaps a "boycott."

But our rivers are wholly under the jurisdiction of the United States and have been since the Revolution. They are owned by the States but navigation is controlled by the nation. If we dig a new canal within our States we are not compelled to go into interminable international negotiations and treaty-making to secure the right. It is domestic entirely until we openly and irrevocably dedicate it to the world's use.

Should our nation purchase and own the Delaware Canal, and bar it against all ships except domestic vessels, the world could have no complaint, even if we freed our ships from toll. As to foreigners this would be a private canal. We could dredge or not dredge; charge or not charge. But the Welland, the Sault, the Suez and the Panama Canal are not of this private character; they are dedicated, public and treaty-regulated canals.

The first two are free to all by treaty; while the last two are toll canals by treaty and diplomacy.

Similar rules cannot legally, logically or sensibly govern dissimilar institutions. The Panama Canal is in no way similar to the national rivers. They are different in origin and control; hence are in no way similar in legal status.

Mr. C. E. Dobson of Pensacola, Fla., giving testimony before the Senate Committee, April, 1914, made a clear and entirely original distinction between the rivers and the Panama Canal. It was this: The rivers lead from the ocean to some domestic port or terminus; while the Panama Canal is not a terminus but a link connecting the countries of the world with one another. The canal was not built to give traffic from New York or London to Panama city; nor yet for traffic from San Francisco to Colon; but its whole purpose was to connect the two great oceans, and thus, was to be not a river but in principle a part of the oceans; and was built with the definite purpose of being a toll canal.

The objections were mostly what may be termed obstructive arguments; arguments thrown across the pathway to prevent the moving forward of the forces of science, logic, justice and correct legal interpretation. The stronger arguments prevailed and the exemption was repealed.

The Philadelphia Ledger of June 14, 1914, in its editorial, speaking of the "repeal act," most graphically and correctly says, "the objectors were argued out of court."

The passage of the repeal cannot be claimed a victory either for the Democrats, the Republicans or the Progressives; nor yet even by England. But it was the victory of the whole body of our people for the credit, and benefit of the American Nation.