HE. GIFT OF GIFT B 231913 THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES AS TO PANAMA CANAL TOLLS SPEECH OF HON. ELIHU OF NEW YORK IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES JANUARY 21, 1913 74G95 11714 WASHINGTON 1913 SPEECH OF HON. ELIIIU ROOT. ( PANAMA CANAL TOLLS. Mr. ROOT. Mr. President, in the late days of last sum- mer, after nearly nine months of continuous session, Congress enacted, in the bill to provide for the administration of the Panama Canal, a provision making a discrimination between the tolls to be charged upon foreign vessels and the tolls to be charged upon American vessels engaged in coastwise trade. We all must realize, as we look back, that when that provision was adopted the Members of both Houses were much exhausted ; our minds were not working with their full vigor ; we were weary physically and mentally. Such discussion as there was was to empty seats. In neither House of Congress, during the period that this provision was under discussion, could there be found more than a scant dozen or two of Members. ' The provision has been the cause of great regret to a multitude of our fellow citizens, whose good opinion we all desire and whose leader- ship of opinion in the country makes their approval of the course of our Congress an important element in maintaining that confidence in government which is so essential to its success/ The provision has caused a painful impression through- out the world that the United States has departed from its often-announced rule of equality of opportunity in the use of the Panama Canal, and is seeking a special advantage for itself in what is believed to be a violation of the obligations of a treaty. Mr. President, that opinion of the civilized world is something which we may not lightly disregard. "A decent re- spect to the opinions of mankind" was one of the motives stated for the people of these colonies in the great Declaration of American Independence.^^" 7469511714 3 257155 The effect of the provision has thus been doubly unfortunate, and I ask the Senate to listen to me while I endeavor to state the situation in which we find ourselves; to state the case which is made against the action that we have taken, in order that I may present to the Senate the question whether we should not either submit to an impartial tribunal the question whether we are right ; so that if we are right, we may be vindicated in the eyes of all the world, or whether we should not, by a repeal of the provision, retire from the position which we have taken. In the year 1850, Mr. President, there were two great powers in possession of the North American Continent to the north of the Rio Grande. The United States had but just come to its full stature. By the Webster-Ashburton treaty of 1842 our north- eastern boundary had been settled, leaving to Great Britain that tremendous stretch of seacoast including Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Labrador, and the shores of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, now forming the Province of Quebec. In 1846 the Oregon boundary had been settled, assuring to the United States a title to that vast region which now constitutes the States of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. In 1848 the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had given to us that great empire 'wrested from Mexico as a result of the Mexican War, which now spreads along the coast of the Pacific as the State of California and the great region between California and Texas. Inspired by the manifest requirements of this new empire, the United States turned its attention to the possibility of realizing the dream of centuries and connecting its two coasts its old coast upon the Atlantic and its new coast upon the Pacific by a ship canal through the Isthmus; but when it turned its attention in that direction it found the other empire holding the place Of advantage. Great Britain had also her coast upon the Atlantic and her coast upon the Pacific, to be joined by a canal. Further than that, Great Britain was a Caribbean power. She had Bermuda and the Bahamas; she had Jamaica and Trinidad ; she had the Windward Islands and the Leeward Islands ; she had British Guiana and British Honduras ; she had, moreover, a protectorate over the Mosquito coast, a 7469511714 great stretch of territory upon the eastern shore of Central America which included the river San Juan and the valley and harbor of San Juan de Nicaragua, or Greytown. All men's minds then were concentrated upon the Nicaragua Canal route, as they were until after the treaty of 1901 was made. And thus*"when the United States turned its attention toward joining these two coasts by a canal through the Isthmus it found Great Britain in possession of the eastern end of the route which men generally believed would be the most avail- able route for the canal. Accordingly, the United States sought a treaty with Great Britain by which Great Britain should re- nounce the advantage which she had and admit the United States to equal participation with her in the control and the protection of a canal across the Isthmus. From, that came the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. Let me repeat that this treaty was sought not by England f but by the United States. Mr. Clayton, who was Secretary of State at the time, sent our minister to France, Mr. Rives, to London for the purpose of urging upon Lord Palmerstou the making of the treaty. *The treaty was made by Great Britain as a concession to the urgent demands of the United States. I should have said, in speaking about the urgency with which the United States sought the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, that there were two treaties made with Nicaragua, one by Mr. Heis and one by Mr. Squire, both representatives of the United States. Fach gave, so far as Nicaragua could, great powers to the United States in regard to the construction of a canal, but they were made without authorization from the United States, and they were not approved by the Government of the United States and were never sent to the Senate. Mr. Clayton, how- ever, held those treaties ia abeyance as a means of inducing Great Britain to enter into the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. He held them practically as a whip over the British negotiators, and having accomplished the purpose they were thrown into the waste basket. *By that treaty Great Britain n greed with the United States . that neither Government should "ever obtain or maintain for 7469511714 6 itself any exclusive control over the ship canal " ; that neither would " make use of any protection " which either afforded to a canal " or any alliance which either " might have " with any State or people for the purpose of erecting or maintaining any fortifications, or of occupying, fortifying, or colonizing Nicara- gua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast, or any part of Central America, or of assuming or exercising dominion over the same," and that neither would " take advantage of any intimacy, or use any alliance, connection, or influence that either " might " possess with any State or Government through whose terri- tory the said canal may pass, for the purpose of acquiring or holding, directly or indirectly, for the citizens or subjects of the one, any rights or advantages in regard to commerce or navigation through the said canal which shall not be offered on the same terms to the citizens or subjects of the other." You will observe, Mr. President, that under these provisions the United States gave up nothing that it then had. Its obliga- tions were entirely looking to the future; and Great Britain gave up its rights under the protectorate over the Mosquito coast, gave up its rights to what was supposed to be the eastern terminus of the canal. And, let me say without recurring to it again, under this treaty, after much discussion which ensued as to the meaning of its terms, Great Britain did surrender her rights to the Mosquito coast, so that the position of the United States and Great Britain became a position of absolute equality. Jnder this treaty also both parties agreed that each should " enter into treaty stipulations with such of the Central Ameri- can States as they " might " deem advisable for the purpose " I now quote the words of the treaty " for the purpose of more effectually carrying out the great design of this convention, namely, that of constructing and maintaining the said canal as a ship communication between the two oceans for the benefit / of mankind, on equal terms to all, and of protecting the same." \s That declaration, Mr. President, is the cornerstone of the rights of the United States upon the Isthmus of Panama, rights having their origin in a solemn declaration that there should be constructed and maintained a ship canal "between the two oceans for the benefit of mankind, on equal terms to all." 74G95 11714 In (lie eighth article of that treaty the parties agreed: \The Governments of the United States and Great Britain having not only desired, in entering Into this convention, to accomplish a par- ticular object, but also to establish a general principle,! they hereby a.-.vn-e to extend their protection, by treaty stipulations,/to any other practicable communications, whether by canal or railway, across the isthmus which connects North and South America, and especially to the interoceanic communications, should the same prove to be prac- ticable, whether by canal or railway, which are now p/oposed to bo established by the way of Tehuantepec or Panama, (in granting, however, their joint protection to any such canals or railways as are by this article specified, it is always understood by the United States and Great Britain that the parties constructing or owning the same shall impose no other charges or conditions of traffic thereupon than the aforesaid Governments shall approve of as just and equitable ; and that the same canals or railways, being open to the citizens and subjects of the United States and Great Britain on equal terms, shall also be open on like terms to the citizens and subjects of every other State which is willing to grant thereto sfcch protection as the United States and Great Britain engage to afford. I There, Mr. President, is the explicit agreement for equality of treatment to the citizens of the United States and to the citizens of Great Britain in any canal, wherever it may be con- structed, across the Isthmus. < That was the fundamental prin- ciple embodied in the treaty of 1S50. And we are not without an authoritative construction as to the scope and requirements of an agreement of that description, because we have another treaty with Great Britain a treaty which formed one of the great landmarks in the diplomatic history of the 'world, and one of the great steps in the progress of civilization the treaty of Washington of 1871, under which the Alabama claims were submitted to arbitration. Under that treaty there were provi- sions for the use of the American canals along the waterway of the Great Lakes, and the Canadian canals along the same line of communication, upon equal terms to the citizens of the two countries. Some years after the treaty, Canada undertook to do some- thing quite similar to what we have undertaken to do in this law about the Panama Canal. It provided that while nominally a toll of 20 cents a ton should be charged upon the merchandise both of Canada and of the United States there should be a rebate of IS cents for all merchandise which went to Montreal or beyond, leaving a toll of but 2 cents a ton for that merchandise. 7469511714 8 The United States objected; and I beg your indulgence while I read from the message of President Cleveland upon that subject, sent to the Congress August 23, 1888. He says : By article 27 of the treaty "of 1871 provision was made to se- cure to the citizens of the United States the use of the Welland, St. Lawrence, and other canals in the Dominion of Canada on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the Dominion, and to also secure to the subjects of Great Britain the use of the St. Clair Flats Canal on terms of equality with the inhabitants of the United States. The equality with the inhabitants of the Dominion which we were promised in the use of the canals of Canada did not secure to us free- dom from tolls in their navigation, but we had a right to expect /that we, being Americans and interested in American commerce, would be no more burdened in regard to the same than Canadians engaged in their own trade ; and the whole spirit of the concession made was, or should have been, that merchandise and property transported to an American market through these canals should not be enhanced in its cost by tolls many times higher than such as were carried to an ad- joining Canadian market. All our citizens, producers and consumers as well as vessel owners, were to enjoy the equality promised. And yet evidence has for some time been before the Congress, fur- nished by the Secretary of the Treasury, showing that while the tolls charged in the first instance are the same to all, such vessels and car- goes as are destined to certain Canadian ports Their coastwise trade are allowed a refund of nearly the entire tolls, while those bound for American ports are not allowed any such advantage. To promise equality and then in practice make it conditional upon .our vessels doing Canadian business instead of their own, is to fulfill a promise with the shadow of performance. Upon the representations of the United States embodying that view, Canada retired from the position which she had taken, re- scinded the provision for differential tolls, and put American trade going to American markets on the same basis of tolls as Canadian trade going to Canadian market^ She did not base her action upon any idea that there was no competition between trade to American ports and trade to Canadian ports, but she recognized the law of equality in good faith and honor ; and to this day that law is being accorded to us and by each great Nation to the other. I have said, Mr. President, that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was sought by us. In seeking it we declared to Great Britain what it was that we sought. I ask the Senate to listen to the declaration that we made j;o induce Great Britain to enter into that treaty to listen to it because it is the declaration by which we are in honor bound as truly as if it were signed and sealed. 7469511714 9 Here I will read from the report made to the Senate on the 5th day of April, 1900, by Senator Cushman K. Davis, then chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. So you will perceive that this is no new matter to the Senate of the United States and that I am not proceeding upon my own authority in thinking it worthy of your attention. Mr. Rives was instructed to say and did say to Lord Palmer- ston, in urging upon him the making of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, this* The United States sought no exclusive privilege or preferential right of any kind in regard to the proposed communication, and their sincere wish, if it should be found practicable, was to see it dedicated to the common use of all nations on the most liberal terms and a footing o^ perfect equality for all. That the United States would not, if they could, obtain any exclusive right or privilege in a great highway which naturally belonged to all mankind. That, sir, was the spirit of the Clayton-Bulwer convention. That was what the United States asked Great Britain to agree upon. That self-denying declaration underlaid and permeated and found expression in the terms of the Clayton-Bulwer con- vention. And upon that representation Great Britain in that convention relinquished her coign of vantage which she herself had for the benefit of her great North American empire for the control of the canal across the Isthmus. Mr. CUMMINS. Mr. President The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from New York yield to the Senator from Iowa? Mr. ROOT. I do, but Mr. CUMMINS. I will ask the Senator from New York whether he prefers that there shall be no interruptions? If he does, I shall not ask any question. Mr. ROOT. Mr. President, I should prefer it, because what I have to say involves establishing the relation between a consid- erable number of acts and instruments, and interruptions natu- rally would destroy the continuity of my statement. Mr. CUMMINS. The question I was about to ask was purely a historic one. Mr. ROOT. I shall be very glad to answer the Senator. 7400511714 10 Mr. CUMMINS. The Senator has stated that at the time of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty we were excluded from the Mosquito coast by the protectorate exercised by Great Britain over that coast. My question is this: Had we not at that time a treaty with New Granada that gave us equal or greater rights upon the Isthmus of Panama than were claimed even by Great Britain over the Mosquito coast? Mr. ROOT. Mr. President, we had the treaty of 1846 with New Grenada, under which we undertook to protect *ny railway or canal across the Isthmus. But that did not apply to the Nicaragua route, which was then supposed to be the most avail- able route for a canal. Mr. CUMMINS. I quite agree with the Senator about that. I only wanted it to appear in the course of the argument that we were then under no disability so far as concerned building a canal across the Isthmus of Panama. Mr. ROOT. We were under a disability so far as concerned building a canal by the Nicaragua route, which was regarded as the available route until the discussion in the Senate after 1901, in which Senator Spooner and Senator Hanna practically changed the judgment of the Senate with regard to what was the proper route to take. And in the treaty of 1850, so anxious were we to secure freedom from the claims of Great Britain on the eastern end of the Nicaragua route that, as I have read, we agreed that the same contract should apply not merely to the Nicaragua route but to the whole of the Isthmus. So that from that time on the whole Isthmus was impressed by the same obligations which were impressed upon the Nicaragua route, and whatever rights we had under our treaty of 1846 with New Grenada we were thenceforth bound to exercise with due regard and subordination to the provisions of the Clayton- Bulwer treaty. Mr. President, after the lapse of some 30 years, during the early part of which we were strenuously insisting upon the ob- servance by Great Britain of her obligations under the Clayton- Bulwer treaty and during the latter part of which we were beginning to be restive under our obligations by reason of that 74G95 11714 11 treaty, we undertook to secure a modification of it from Great Britain. In the course of that undertaking there was much discussion and some difference of opinion as to the continued obligations of the treaty. But I think that was finally put at rest by the decision of Secretary Olney in "the memorandum upon the subject made by him in the year 1806. In that memo- randum he said : Under these circumstances, upon every principle which governs the rehifion to each other, either of nations or of individuals, the United States is completely estopped from denying that the treaty is in full force and vigor. If changed conditions now make stipulations, which were once deemed advantageous, either inapplicable or injurious, the true remedy is not in ingenious attempts to deny the existence of the treaty or to explain away its provisions, hut in a direct and straightforward ap- plication to Great Britain for a reconsideration of the whole matter. We did apply to Great Britain for a reconsideration of the whole matter, and the result of the application was the Hay- Pauncefote treaty. That treaty came before the Senate in two forms : First, in the form of an instrument signed on the 5th of February, 1900, which was amended by the Senate; and, second, in the form of an instrument signed on the 18th of November. 1001, which continued the greater part of the provisions of the earlier instrument, but somewhat modified or varied the amend- ments which had been made by the Senate to that earlier in- strument. It is really but one process by which the paper sent to the Senate in February, 1000, passed through a course of amend' uient ; first, at the hands of the Senate, and then at the hand., of the negotiators between Great Britain and the United States, with the subsequent approval of the Senate. In both the first form and the last of this treaty the preamble provides for preserving the provisions of article 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. Both forms provide for the construction of the canal under the auspices of the United States alone instead of its construction under the auspices of both countries. Both forms of that treaty provide that the canal might be constructed under the auspices of the Government of the United States, either directly at its own cost or by gift or loan of money to Indi- viduals or corporations or through subscription to or purchase of stock or shares 74C05 11714 12 that being substituted for the provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty under which both countries were to be patrons of the en- terprise. Under both forms it was further provided that Subject to the provisions of the present convention, the said Govern- ment The United States- shall have and enjoy all the rights incident to such construction, as well as the exclusive right of providing for the regulation and manage- ment of the canal. That provision, however, for the exclusive patronage of the United States was subject to the initial provision that the modi- fication or change from the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was to be for the construction of such canal under the auspices of the Government of the United States, without impairing the gen- eral principle of neutralization established in article 8 of that convention. Then the treaty as it was finally agreed to provides that the United States " adopt, as the basis of such neutralization of such ship canal," the following rules, substantially as embodied in the convention " of Constantinople, signed the 29th of Octo- ber, 1.888," for the free navigation of the Suez Maritime Canal ; that is to say : /' First. The canal shall be free and open * * * to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations " observing these rules on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimina- tion against any nation or its citizens or subjects in respect to the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise." Such con- / ditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable. Then follow rules relating to blockade and vessels of war, the embarkation and disembarkation of troops, and the extension of the provisions to the waters adjacent to the canal. Now, Mr. President, that rule must, of course, be read in con- nection with the provision for the preservation of the principle of neutralization established in article 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer convention. Let me take your minds back again to article 8 of the Clay- ton-Bulwer convention, consistently with which we are bound to construe the rule established by the Hay-Pauncefote con- 74695 11714 13 vention. The principle of neutralization provided for by the eighth article is neutralization upon terms of absolute equality both between the United States and Great Britain and between the United States and all other powers. It is always understood Says the eighth article by the United States and Great Britain that the parties constructing or owning the same That is, the canal shall impose no other charges or conditions cf traffic thereupon than the aforesaid Governments shall approve of as just and equitable, and that the same canals or railways, being open to the citizens and sub- jects of the United States and Great Britain on equal terms, shall also be open on like terms to the citizens and subjects of every other State which is willing to grant thereto such protection as the United States and Great Britain engage to afford. Nov Mow, we are not at liberty to put any construction upon the Hay-Pauncefote treaty which violates that controlling declara- tion of absolute equality between the citizens and subjects of Great Britain and the United States. Mr. President, when the Hay-Pauncefote convention was rati- fied by the Senate it was in full view of this controlling prin- ciple, in accordance with which their act must be construed, for Senator Davis, in his report from the Committee on For- eign Relations, to which I have already referred Mr. McCUMBER. On the treaty in its first form. Mr. ROOT. Yes; the report on the treaty in its first form. Mr. Davis said, after referring to the Suez convention of 1888 : The United States can not take an attitude of opposition to the prin- ciples of the great act of October 22, 1888, without discrediting the official declarations of our Government for 50 years on the neutrality of an Isthmian canal and its equal use by all nations without discrimi- nation. To set up the selfish motive of gain by establishing a monopoly of a highway that must derive its income from the patronage of all maritime countries would be unworthy of the United States if we owned tha country through which the canal is to be built. But the location of the canal belongs to other governments, from whom we must obtain any right to construct a canal on their territory, and it is not unreasonable, if the question was new and was not involved in a subsisting treaty with Great Britain, that she should question the right of even Nicaragua and Costa Rica to grant to our ships of commerce and of war extraordinary privileges of transit through the canal. 7469511714 14 I shall revert to that principle declared by Senator Davis. 1 continue the quotation : It is not reasonable to suppose that Nicaragua and Costa Rica would grant to the United States the exclusive control of a canal through those States on terms less generous to the other maritime nations than those prescribed in the great act of October 22, 1888, or if we could compel them to give us such advantages over other nations it would not be creditable to our country to accept them. That our Government or our people will furnish the money to build the canal presents the single question whether it is profitable to do so. If the canal, as property, is worth more than its cost, we are not called on to divide the profits with other nations. If it is worth less and we are compelled by national necessities to build the canal, we have no right to call on other nations to make up the loss to us. In any view, it is a venture that we will enter upon if it is to our interest, and if it is otherwise we will withdraw from its further consideration. The Suez Canal makes no discrimination in its tolls in favor of its stockholders, and, taking its profits or the half of them as our basis of calculation, we will never find it necessary to differentiate our rates of toll in favor of our own people in order to secure a very great profit on the investment. Mr. President, in view of that declaration of principle, in the face of that declaration, the United States can not afford to take a position at variance with the rule of universal equality estab- lished in the Suez Canal convention equality as to every stock- holder and all nonstockholders, equality as to every nation whether in possession or out of possession. In the face of that declaration the United States can not afford to take any other position than upon the rule of universal equality of the Suez Canal convention, and upon the further declaration that the country owning the territory through which this canal was to ba built would not and ought not to give any special advantage or preference to the United States as compared with all the other nations of the earth. In view of that report the Senate rejected the amendment which was offered by Senator Bard, of Cali- fornia, providing for preference to the coastwise trade of the United States. This is the amendment which was proposed : The United States reserves the right in the regulation and manage- ment of the canal to discriminate in respect of the charges of traffic in 'favor of vessels of its own citizens engaged in the coastwise trade. I say, the Senate rejected that amendment upon this report, which declared the rule of universal equality without any preference or discrimination in favor of the United States as 7469511714 being the meaning of the treaty and the necessary meaning of the treaty. There was still more before the Senate, there was stiK more before the country to fix the meaning of the treaty. I have read the representations that were made, the solemn declara- tions made by the United States to Great Britain establishing the rule of absolute equality without discrimination in favor of the United States or its citizens to induce Great Britain to enter into the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. Now, let me read the declaration made to Great Britain to induce her to modify the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and give up her right to joint control of the canal and put in our hands the sole power to construct it or patronize it or control it. Mr. Elaine said in his instructions to Mr. Lowell on June 24, 1881, directing Mr. Lowell to propose to Great Britain the modi- fication of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. I read his words : The United States recognizes a proper guarantee of neutrality as essential to the co-nstruction and successful operation of any highway across the Isthmus of Panama, and in the last generation every step was taken by this Government that is deemed requisite in the premises. The necessity was foreseen and abundantly provided for long In ad- fvance of any possible call for the actual exercise of power. * * * Nor, in time of peace, does the United States seek to have any txclu- : sive privileges accorded to American ships in respect to precedence or tolls thraugJi an interoceanic canal any more than it has sought like privileges for American goods in transit over the I^iama Railway, under the exclusive control of an American corporation. \ The extent of the privileges of American citizens and ships is measurably under the treaty of 1846 by those of Colombian citizens and ships, fit would 6e our earnest desire and expectation to see the icorld's^eacejul commerce enjoy the same just, liberal, and- rational treatment. I Again, he said to Great Britain: f The United States, as I have before had occasion to assure your Dordship, demand no exclusive privileges in these passages, but will always exert their influence to secure their free and unrestricted "benefits, toth in peace and war, to the commerce of the icorld. J Mr. Presidentj^lTwas upon that declaration, upon that self- denying declaration, upon that solemn assurance, that the United States sought not and would not have any preference for its own citizens over the subjects and citizens of other countries that Great Britain abandoned her rights under tht 7469511714 16 Olay ton-Bui wer tieaty and entered into the Hay-Pauiicefote treaty, with the clause continuing the principles of clause 8, which embodied these same declarations, and the clause estab- lishing the rule of equality taken from the Suez Canal conven- tion. We are not at liberty to give any other construction to the Hay-Pauncefote treaty than the construction which is con- sistent with that declaration. Mr. President, these declarations, made specifically and di- rectly to secure the making of these treaties, do not stand alone. For a longer period than the oldest Senator has lived the United States has been from time to time making open and pub- lic declarations of her disinterestedness, her altruism, her pur- poses, for the benefit of mankind, her freedom from desire or willingness to secure special and peculiar advantage in respect of transit across the Isthmus. In 1826 Mr. Clay, then Secre- tary of State in the Cabinet of John Quincy Adanis, said, in his instructions to the delegates to the Panama Congress of that year : If a canal across the Isthmus be opened " so as to admit of the passage of sea vessels from ocean to ocean, the benefit of it ought not to be exclusively appropriated to any one nation, but should be ex- tended to all parts of the globe upon the payment of a just compensa- tion for reasonable tolls." Mr. Cleveland, in his annual message of 18S5, said : The lapse of years has abundantly confirmed the wisdom and fore- sight of those earlier administrations which, long before the conditions of maritime intercourse were changed and enlarged by the progress of the age, proclaimed the vital need of interoceanic transit across the American Isthmus and consecrated it in advance to the common use of mankind by their positive declarations and through the formal obligations of treaties. Toward such realization the efforts of my ad- ministration will be applied, ever bearing in mind the principles on which it must rest and which were declared in no uncertain tones by Mr; Cass, who, while Secretary of State in 1858, announced that " What the United States want in Central America next to the happiness of its people Is the security and neutrality of the interoceanic routes which lead through it." By public declarations, by the solemn asseverations of our treaties with Colombia in 1846, with Great Britain in 1850, our treaties with Nicaragua, our treaty with Great Britain in 1901, our treaty with Panama in 1903, we have presented to the world the most unequivocal guaranty of disinterested action for the common benefit of mankind and not for our selfish advantage. 7469511714 17 In ibo message which was sent to Congress by President Roosevelt on the 4th of January, 1904, explaining the course of this Government regarding the revolution in Panama and the making of the treaty by which we acquired all the title that we have upon the Isthmus, President Roosevelt said : If ever a Government could be said to have received a mandate from civilisation to effect an object the accomplishment of which v;as de- manded in the interest of mankind, the United States holds that posi- tion with regard to the interoceanic canal. Mr. President, there has been much discussion for many years among authorities upon international law as to whether artificial canals for the convenience of commerce did not par- take of the character of natural passageways to such a degree that, by the rules of international law, equality must be ob- served in the treatment of mankind by the nation which has possession and control. Many very high authorities have as- serted that that rule applies to the Panama Canal even without a treaty. We base our title upon the right of mankind in the Isthmus, treaty or no treaty. We have long asserted, begin- ning with Secretary Cass, that the nations of Central America had no right to debar the world from its right of passage across the Isthmus. Upon that view, in the words which I have quoted from President Roosevelt's message to Congress, we base the justice of our entire action upon the Isthmus which resulted in our having the Canal Zone. We could not have taken it for our selfish interest ; we could not have taken it for the pur- pose of securing an advantage to the people of the United States over the other peoples of the world ; it was only because civilization had its rights to passage across the Isthmus and because we made ourselves the mandatory of civilization to assert those rights that we are entitled to be there at all. On the principles which underlie our action and upon all the decla- rations that we have made for more than half a century, as well as upon the express and positive stipulations of our treaties, we are forbidden to say we have taken the custody of the Canal Zone to give ourselves any right of preference over the other civilized nations of the world beyond those rights which go to the owner of a canal to have the tolls that are charged for passage. 7409511714 2 18 Well, Mr. President, asserting that we were acting for the common benefit of mankind, willing to accept no preferential right of our own, just as we asserted it to secure the Clayton- Bulwer treaty, just as we asserted it to secure the Hay-Paunce- . fote treaty, when we had recognized the Republic of Panama, we made a treaty with her on the 18th of November, 1903. I ask your attention now to the provisions of that treaty. In that treaty both Panama and the United States recognize the fact that the United States was acting, not for its own special and selfish interest, but in the interest of mankind. The suggestion has been made that we are relieved from the obligations of our treaties with Great Britain because the Canal Zone is our territory. It is said that, because it has become ours, we are entitled to build the canal on our own territory and do what we please with it. Nothing can be further from r the fact. It is not our territory, except in trust. Article 2 of treaty with Panama provides : The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity \ the use, occupation, and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection ,of said canal And for no other purpose of the wix3th of 10 miles extending to the distance of 5 miles on each Bide of the center line of the route of the canal to be constructed. The Republic of Panama further grants to the United States in per- petuity the use, occupation, and control of any other lands and waters outside of the zone above described which may be necessary and con- venient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection of the said canal or of any auxiliary canals or other works necessary and convenient for the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation, and protection of the said enterprise. Article 3 provides: The Republic of Panama grants to the United States all the rights, power, and authority within the zone mentioned and described in article 2 of this agreement From which I have just read and within the limits of all auxiliary lands and waters mentioned and described in said article 2 which the United States would possess and exercise if it were the sovereign of the territory within which said lands and waters are located to the entire exclusion of the exercise by the Republic of Panama of any such sovereign rights, power, or au- thority. 74G95 11714 19 Article 5 provides: ;u- \ by\ of, The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity a monopoly for the construction, maintenance, and operation of any system of communication by means of canal or railroad across its ter- ritory between the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean. I now read from article 18: The canal, when constructed, and the entrances thereto shall be neu- tral in perpetuity, and shall be opened upon the terms provided for ; section 1 of article 3 of, and in conformity with all the stipulations 1 the treaty entered into by the Governments of the United States and \ Great Britain on November 18, 1901. So, Mr. President, far from our being relieved of the obliga- tions of the treaty with Great Britain by reason of the title that we have obtained to the Canal Zone, we have taken that title impressed with a solemn trust. We have taken it for no purpose e -cept the construction and maintenance of a canal in accordance with all the stipulations of our treaty with Great Britain. We can not be false to those stipulations without adding to the breach of contract a breach of the trust which we have assumed, according to our own declarations, for the benefit of mankind as the mandatory of civilization. In anticipation of the plainly-to-be-foreseen contingency of our having to acquire some kind of title in order to construct the canal, the Hay-Pauncefote treaty provided expressly in article 4 : It is agreed that no change of territorial sovereignty or of interna- ^ / tional relations of the country or countries traversed by the before- ' mentioned canal shall affect the general principle of neutralization or the obligation of the high contracting parties under the present treaty. So you will see that the treaty with Great Britain expressly provides that its obligations shall continue, no matter what title we get to the Canal Zone; and the treaty by which we get the title expressly impresses upon it as a trust the obligations of the treaty with Great Britain. How idle it is to say that because the Canal Zone is ours we can do with it what we please. There is another suggestion made regarding the obligations of this treaty, and that is that matters relating to the coasting trade are matters of special domestic concern, and that nobody else has any right to say anything about them. We did not think so when we were dealing with the Canadian canals. But that may not be conclusive as to rights under this treaty. But examine it for a moment. 74C95 11714 20 It is rather poverty of language than a genius for definition which leads us to call a voyage from New York to San Fran- cisco, passing along countries thousands of miles away from our territory, " coasting trade," or to call a voyage from New York to Manila, on the other side of the world, " coasting trade." 'When we use the term "coasting trade" what we really .mean is that under our navigation laws a voyage which begins and ends at an American port has certain privileges and immunities and rights, and it is necessarily in that sense that the term is used in this statute. It must be construed in accordance with our statutes. Sir, I do not for a moment dispute that ordinary coasting trade is a special kind of trade that is entitled to be treated differently from trade to or from distant foreign points. It is ordinarily neighborhood trade, from port to port, by which the people of a country carry on their intercommunication, often by small vessels, poor vessels, carrying cargoes of slight value. It would be quite impracticable to impose upon trade of that kind the same kind of burdens which great ocean-going steamers, trading to the farthest parts of the earth, can well bear. We make that distinction. Indeed, Great Britain herself makes it, although Great Britain admits all the w r orld to her coasting trade. But it is by quite a different basis of classification that is, the statutory basis that we call a voyage f i the eastern coast of the United States to the Orient a coasting voy- age, because it begins and ends in an American port. This is a special, peculiar kind of trade w r hich passes through the Panama Canal. You may call it " coasting trade," but it is unlike any other coasting trade. It is special and peculiar to itself. Grant that we are entitled to fix a different rate of tolls for that class of trade from that which would be fixed for other classes of trade. Ah, yes; but Great Britain has her coasting trade through the canal under the same definition, and Mexico has her coasting trade, and Germany has her coasting trade, and Colombia has her coasting trade, in the same sense that we have. You are not at liberty to discriminate in fixing tolls 7469511714 21 between a voyage from Portland, Me., to Portland, Oreg., by an American ship, and a voyage from Halifax to Victoria in a British ship, or a voyage from Vera Cruz to Acapulco in a Mexican ship, because when you do so you discriminate, not between coasting trade and other trade, but between American ships and British ships, Mexican ships, or Colombian ships. That is a violation of the rule of equality which we have solemnly adopted, and asserted and reasserted, and to which we are bound by every consideration of honor and good faith. Whatever this treaty means, it means for that kind of trade as well as for any other kind of trade. The suggestion has been made, also, that we should not con- sider that the provision in this treaty about equality as to tolls really means what it says, because it is not to be supposed that the United States would give up the right to defend itself, to protect its own territory, to land its own troops, and to send through the canal as it pleases its own ships of war. That is disposed of by the considerations which were presented to the Senate in the Davis report, to which I have already referred, in regard to the Suez convention. The Suez convention, from which these rules of the Hay- Pauncefote treaty were taken almost though not quite tex- tually, contained other provisions which reserved to Turkey and to Egypt, as sovereigns of the territory through which the canal passed Egypt as the sovereign and Turkey as the suzerain over Egypt all of the rights that pertained to sov- ereigns for the protection of their own territory. As when the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was made neither party to the treaty had any title to the region which would be traversed by the canal, no such clauses could be introduced. But, as was pointed out, the rules which were taken from the Suez Canal for the control of the canal management would necessarily be subject to these rights of sovereignty which were still to be secured from the countries owning the territory. That is recognized by the British Government in the note which has been sent to us and has been laid before the Senate, or is in the possession of the Senate, from the British foreign office. 74695 11714 22 In Sir Edward Grey's note of November 14, 1912, he says what I am about to read. This is an explicit disclaimer of any contention that the provisions of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty ex- clude us from the same rights of protection of territory which Nicaragua or Colombia or Panama would have had as sover- eigns, and which we succeed to, pro tanto, by virtue of the Panama Canal treaty. SUr Edward Grey says : I notice that in the course of the debate in the Senate on the Panama Canal bill the argument was used by one of the speakers that the third, fourth, and fifth rules embodied in article 3 of the treaty show that the words "all nations" can not include the United States, because, ,if the United States were at war, it is impossible to believe that it could be intended to be debarred by the treaty from using its own territory for revictualling its warships or landing troops. ^ The same point may strike others who read nothing but the text of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty itself, and I think it is therefiere worth while that I should briefly show that this argument is,, not well founded. I read this not as an argument but because it is a formal, official disclaimer which is binding. ^ Sir Edward Grey proceeds : The Hay-Pauncefote treaty of 1901 aimed at carrying out the prin- ciple of the neutralization of the Panama Canal by subjecting it to the same regime as the Suez Canal. Rules 3, 4, and 5 of article 3 of the treaty are taken almost textually from articles 4, ?Cand C of the Suez Canal Convention of 1888. At the date of the signature of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty the territory on which the Isthmian Canal was to be constructed did not belong to the United States, consequently there was no need to insert in the draft treaty provisions correspond- ing to those in articles 10 and 13 of the Suez Canal Convention, which preserve ,the sovereign rights of Turkey and of Egypt, and stipulate that articles 4 and 5 shall not affect the right of Turkey, as the local sovereign, and of Egypt, within the measure of her autonomy, to take such measures as may be necessary for securing the defense of Egypt and the maintenance of public order, and, in the case of Turkey, the defense of her possessions on the Red Sea. Now that the United States has become the practical sovereign of the canal, His Majesty's Government do not question its title to ex- ercise belligerent rights for its protection. Mr. President, Great Britain has asserted the construction of the Hay-Pauucefote treaty of 1901, the arguments for which I have been stating to the Senate. I realize, sir, that I may be wrong. I have often been wrong. I realize that the gentlemen who have taken a different view regarding the meaning of this treaty may be right. I do not think so. But their ability and 7469511714 fairness of mind would make it idle for me not to entertain the possibility that they are right and I am wrong. Yet, Mr. Presi- dent, the question whether they are right and I am wrong de- pends upon the interpretation of the treaty. It depends upon the interpretation of the treaty in the light of all the declara- tions that have been made by the parties to it, in the light of the nature of the subject matter with which it deals. Gentlemen say the question of imposing tolls or not imposing tolls upon our coastwise commerce is a matter of our concern. Ah! we have made a treaty about it. If the interpretation of the treaty is as England claims, then it is not a matter of our concern ; it is a matter of treaty rights and duties. But, sir, it is not a question as to our rights to remit tolls to our commerce. ^Tt is a question whether we can impose tolls upon British com- merce when we have remitted them from our own. That is the question. Nobody disputes our right to allow our own ships to go through the canal without paying tolls. """What is disputed is our right to charge tolls against other ships when we do not charge them against our own. That is, pure and simple, a ques- tion of international right and duty, and depends upon the inter- pretation of the treaty. Sir, we have another treaty, made between the United States and Great Britain on the 4th of April, 1908, in which the two nations have agreed as follows : Differences which may arise of a legal nature or relating to the in- terpretation of treaties existing 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, neverthe- less, that they do not affect the vital interests, the independence, or the honor of the two contracting States, and do not concern the inter- ests of third parties. Of course, the question of the rate of tolls on the Panama Canal does not affect any nation's vital interests. It does not affect the independence or the hoiior of either of these contract- ing States. We have a difference relating to the interpretation of this treaty, and that is all there is to it. We are bound, by this treaty of arbitration, not to stand with arrogant assertion upon our own Government's opinion as to the interpretation of the treaty, not to require that Great Britain shall suffer what 74G95 11714 24 she deems injustice by violation of the treaty, or else go to war. We are bound to say, " We keep the faith of our treaty of arbi- tration, and we will submit the question as to what this treaty means "to an impartial tribunal of arbitration." 1 \/ Mr. President, if we stand in the position of arrogant refusal to submit the questions arising upon the interpretation of this treaty to arbitration, we shall not only violate our solemn obli- gation, but we shall be false to all the principles that we have asserted to the world, and that we have urged upon mankind. We have been the apostle of arbitration. We have been urging it upon the other civilized nations. Presidents, Secretaries of State, ambassadors, and ministers aye, Congresses, the Senate and the House, all branches of our Government have committed the United States to the principle ~ of arbitration irrevocably, unequivocally, and we have urged it in season and out of season on the rest of mankind. Sir, I can not detain the Senate by more than beginning upon the expressions that have come from our Government upon this subject, but I will ask your indulgence while I call your atten- tion to a few selected from the others. On the 9th of June, 1874, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations reported and the Senate adopted this resolution : Resolved, That the United States having at heart the cause of peace everywhere, and hoping to help its permanent establishment between nations, hereby recommend the adoption of arbitration as a great and practical method for the determination of international difference, to be maintained sincei-ely and in -good faith, so that war may cease to be regarded as a proper form of trial between nations. On the 17th of June, 1874, the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House adopted this resolution : Whereas war is at all times destructive of the material interests of a people, demoralizing in its tendencies, and at variance with an en- lightened public sentiment ; and whereas differences between nations should in the interests of humanity and fraternitij be adjusted, if possible, by international arbitration: Therefore, Resolved, That the people of the United States being devoted to the policy of peace with all mankind, enjoining its blessings and hoping for its permanence and its universal adoption, hereby through their representatives in Congress recommend such arbitration as a rational substitute for war ; and they further recommend to the treaty-making power of the Government to provide, if practicable, that hereafter in treaties made between the United States and foreign powers war shall 7469511714 25 not be declared by either of the contracting parties against the other until efforts shall have been made to adjust all alleged cause of differ- ence by impartial arbitration. On the same 17th of June, 1874, the Senate adopted this resolution : Resolved, etc., That the President of the United States Is hereby authorized and requested to negotiate with all civilized powers who may be willing to enter into such negotiations for the establishment of an international system whereby matters in dispute between different Governments agreeing thereto may be adjusted by arbitration, and, if possible, without recourse to war. On the 14th of June, 1SSS, and again on the 14th of February, 1S90, the Senate and the House adopted a concurrent resolution in the words which I now read : Resolved "by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the President be, and is hereby, requested to invite, from time to time, as fit occasions may a.rise, negotiations with any Government with which the United States has, or may have, diplomatic relations, to the end that any differences or disputes arising between the two Gov- ernments which can not be adjusted by diplomatic agency may be referred to arbitration and be peaceably adjusted by such means. This was concurred in by the House on the 3d of April, 1890. Mr. president, in pursuance of those declarations by both Houses of Congress the Presidents and the Secretaries of State and the diplomatic agents of the United States, doing their bounden duty, have been urging arbitration upon the people of the world. Our representatives in The Hague conference of 1899, and in The Hague conference of 1907, and in the Pan American conference in "Washington, and in the Pan American conference in Mexico, and in the Pan American conference in Rio de Janeiro were instructed to urge and did urge and pledge the United States in the most unequivocal and urgent terms to support the principle of arbitration upon all questions capable of being submitted to a tribunal for a decision. Under those instructions Mr. Hay addressed the people of the entire civilized world with the request to come into treaties of arbitration with the United States. Here was his letter. After quoting from the resolutions and from expressions by the President he said : Moved by these views, the President has charged me to instruct you to ascertain whether the Government to which you are accredited, 7469511714 26 which he has reason to believe is equally desirous of advancing the principle of international arbitration, is willing to conclude with the Government of the United States an arbitration treaty of like tenor to the arrangement concluded between France and Great Britain on Octo- ber 14, 1903. That was the origin of this treaty. The treaties made by Mr. Hay were not satisfactory to the Senate because of the question about the participation of the Senate in the make-up of the special agreement of submission. Mr. Hay's successor modified that on conference with the Committee on Foreign Re- lations of the Senate, and secured the assent of the other coun- tries of the world to the treaty with that modification. We have made 25 of these treaties of arbitration, covering the greater part of the world, under the direction of the Senate of the United States and the House of Representatives of the United States and in accordance with the traditional policy of the United States, holding up to the world the principle of peaceful arbitration. One of these treaties is here, and under it Great Britain is demanding that the question as to what the true interpreta- tion of our treaty about the canal is shall be submitted to deci- sion and not be made the subject of war or of submission to what she deems injustice to avoid war. In response to the last resolution which I have read, the con- current resolution passed by the Senate and the House request- ing the President to enter into the negotiations which resulted in these treaties of arbitration, the British House of Com- mons passed a resolution accepting the overture. On the IGth of July, 1893, the House of Commons adopted this resolution : Resolved, That this house has learnt with satisfaction that both Houses of the United States Congress have, by resolution, requested the President to invite from time to time, as fit occasions may arise, negotiations with any government with which the United States have or may have diplomatic relations, to the end that any differences or dis- putes arising between the two governments which can not be adjusted by diplomatic agency may be referred to arbitration and peaceably adjusted by such means, and that this house, cordially sympathizing with the purpose in view, expresses the hope that Her Majesty's Gov- ernment will lend their ready cooperation to the Government of the United States upon the basis of the foregoing resolution. Her Majesty's Government did, and thence came this treaty. 7469511714 27 Mr. President, what revolting hypocrisy we convict ourselves of, if after all this, the first time there comes up a question in which we have an interest, the first time there comes up a ques- tion of difference about the meaning of a treaty as to which we fear we may be beaten in an arbitration, we refuse to keep our agreement? Where will be our self-respect if we do that? Where will be that respect to which a great nation is entitled from the other nations of the earth? I have read from what Congress has said. Let me read something from President Grant's annual mes- sage of December 4, 1871. He is commenting upon the arbitra- tion provisions of the treaty of 1871, in which Great Britain submitted to arbitration our claims against her, known as the Alabama claims, in which Great Britain submitted those claims where she stood possibly to lose but not possibly to gain any- thing, and submitted them against the most earnest and violent protest of many of her own citizens. Gen. Grant said : The year has been an eventful one in witnessing two great nations speaking one language and having one lineage, settling by peaceful arbi- tration disputes of long standing and liable at any time to bring those nations into costly and bloody conflict. An example has been set which, if successful in its final issue, may be followed by other civilized nations and finally be the means of returning to productive industry millions of men now maintained to settle the disputes of nations by the bayonet and by broadside. Under the authority of these resolutions our delegates in the first Pan American conference at Washington secured the adop- tion of this resolution April IS, 1890: ARTICLE 1. The Republics of North, Central, and South America hereby adopt arbitration as a principle of American international law for the settlement of the differences, disputes, or controversies that may arise between two or more of them. And this: The International American Conference resolves that this confer- ence, having recommended arbitration for the settlement of disputes among the Republics of America, begs leave to express the wish that controversies between them and the nations of Europe may be settled in the same friendly manner. It is further recommended that the Government of ettch nation herein represented communicate this wish to all friendly powers. 7469511714 28 Upon that Mr. Elaine, that most vigorous and virile Amer- ican, in his address as the presiding officer of that first. Pan American conference in Washington said: If, in this closing hour, the conference had but one deed to celebrate we should dare call the world's attention to the deliberate, confident, solemn dedication of two great continents to peace and to the pros- perity which has peace fot its foundation. We hold up this new Magna Chart*, which abolishes war and substitutes arbitration betwaen the American Republics, as the first and great fruit of the International American Conference. That noblest of Americans, the aged poet and philanthropist, Whittier, is the first to send his salutation and his benediction, declaring, " If in the spirit of peace the American confer- ence agrees upon a rule of arbitration which shall make war in this hemisphere well-nigh impossible, its sessions will prove one of the most important events in the history of the world." President Arthur in his nmiual message of December 4, 1882, said, in discussing the proposition for a Pan American con- ference : I am unwilling to dismiss this subject without assuring you of my support of any measure the wisdom of Congress may devise for the promotion of peace on this continent and throughout the world, and I trust the time is nigh when, with the universal assent of civilized peoples, all international differences shall be determined without resort to arms by the benignant processes of arbitration. President Harrison in his message of December 3, 1889, said concerning the Pan American conference: But while the commercial results which it is hoped will follow this conference are worthy of pursuit and of the great interests they have excited, it is believed that the crowning benefit will be found in the better securities which may be devised for the maintenance of peace among all American nations and the settlement of all contentions by methods that a Chriotian, civilization can approve. President Cleveland, in his message of December 4, 1893, .aid, concerning the resolution of the British Parliament of July 16, 1893, which I have already read, and commenting on the concurrent resolution of February 14 and April 18, 1890: It affords me signal pleasure to lay this parliamentary resolution before the Congress and to express my sincere gratification that the senti- ment of two great kindred nations is thus authoritatively manifested in ravor of the rational and peaceable settlement of international quarrels by honorable resort to arbitration. President McKinley, in his message of December 6, 1897, said : International arbitration can not be omitted from the list of sub- jects claiming our consideration. Events have only served to strengthen the general views on this question expressed in my inaugural address. 74G05 11714 29 The best sentiment of the civilized world is moving toward the settle- ment of differences between nations without resorting to the horrors of war. Treaties embodying these humane principles on broad lines without in any way imperiling our interests or our honor shall have my constant encouragement. President Roosevelt, in his message of December 3, 1005, said: I earnestly hope that the conference The second Hague conference may be able to devise some way to make arbitration between nations the customary way of settling international disputes in all save a few classes of cases, which should themselves be sharply defined and rigidly limited as the present governmental and social development of the world will permit. If possible, there should be a general arbitration treaty negotiated among all nations represented at the conference. Oh, Mr. President, are we Pharisees? Have we bean insin- cere and false? Have we been pretending in all these long years ' of resolution and declaration and proposal and urgency for arbi- tration? Are we ready now to admit that our country, that its Congresses and its Presidents, have all been guilty of false pretense, of humbug, of talking to the galleries, of fine words to secure applause, and that the instant we have an interest we are ready to falsify every declaration, every promise, and every principle? But we must do that if we arrogantly insist that we alone will determine upon the interpretation of this treaty and will refuse to abide by the agreement of our treaty of arbitration. , Mr. President, what is all this for? Is the game worth the 7 candle? 4fs it worth while to put ourselves in a position and to remain in a position to maintain which we may be driven to repudiate our principles, our professions, and our agreements for the purpose of conferring a money benefit not very great, not very important, but a money benefit at the expense of the | Treasury of the United States, upon the most highly and abso- lutely protected special industry in the United States? Is it worth while? We refuse to help our foreign shipping, which i in competition with the lower wages and the lower standard of living of foreign countries, and we are proposing to do this for a part of our coastwise shipping which has now by law me absolute protection of a statutory monopoly and which needs 110 help. 7469511714 30 Mr. President, there is but one alternative consistent with self-respect. We must arbitrate the interpretation of this treaty or we must retire from the position we have taken. O Senators, consider for a moment what it is that we are doing. We all love our country; we are all proud of its his- tory; we are all full of hope and courage for its future; we love its good name; we desire for it that power among the nations of the earth which will enable it to accomplish still greater, things for civilization than it has accomplished in its noble past. Shall we make ourselves in the minds of the world like unto the man who in his own community is marked as astute and cun- ning to get out of his obligations? Shall we make ourselves like unto the man who is known to be false to his agreements; false to his pledged word? Shall we have it understood the whole world over that " you must look out for the United States or she will get the advantage of you " ; that we are clever and cunning to get the better of the other party to an agree- ment, and tha.t at the end Mr. BRANDEGEE. " Slippery " would be a better word. Mr. ROOT. Yes; I thank the Senator for the suggestion " slippery." Shall we in our generation add to those claims to honor and respect that our fathers have established for our country good cause that we shall be considered slippery? It is worth while, Mr. President, to be a citizen of a great country, but size alone is not enough to make a country great. ^. country must be great in its ideals ; it must be great-hearted ; it must be noble; it must despise and reject all smallness and meanness; it must be faithful to its word; it must keep the faith of treaties ; it must be faithful to its mission of civiliza- tion in order that it shall be truly great. It is because we believe that of our country that we are proud, aye, that the alien with the first step of his foot upon our soil is proud to be a part of this great democracy. Let us put aside the idea of small, petty advantage; let us treat this situation and these obligations in our relation to this canal in that large way which befits a great nation. 7469511714 31 Mr. President, bow sad it would be if we were to dim tbe splendor of tbat great achievement by drawing across it tbe mark of petty selfishness; if we were to diminish and reduce for generations to come the power and influence of this free Republic for the uplifting and the progress of mankind by de- stroying the respect of mankind for us ! How sad it would be if yon and I, Senators, were to make ourselves responsible for destroying that, bright and inspiring ideal which has enabled free America to lead the world in progress toward liberty and justice ! 7469311714 o THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENAL WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON MAY 3 193 APR 11 1934 1934 MAY 12 1941 DEC 9 1941 M ,.7 ma APB20'B7-EM LD 21-50m-l,'3