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