delivered over there, than the Englishmen. That will give you an idea of the syndicate they have there.

Senator SIMMONS. Did I understand you to say that the rate on your pipe across the continent already is $13?

Mr. WOOD. Sixty-five cents a hundred, that is $13, sir.

Senator SIMMONS. And by water?

Mr. WOOD. By water now it is $9 to $10.
Senator SIMMONS. Say, $9.50?

Mr. WOOD. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMMONS. That is a difference of?

Mr. WOOD. Three dollars and fifty cents.

Senator SIMMONS. Do you think that a toll rate of 40 cents would affect the rail rate?

Mr. Wood. Oh, it will have some effect. You can not make any changes of that kind without having some effect. You can not tell how much it is going to be.

Senator SIMMONS. If the rail rate now is $3.50 more than the water rate, do you think reducing the water rate to $3.10, I mean, to $9.10 instead of $9.50, would benefit the consumer or reduce the rail rate? Do you think the railroads would reduce the rail rate because the water rate has been reduced from $9.50 to $9.10?

Mr. WOOD. The railroad

Mr. WOOD. The rail men always take everything into consideration. Exactly whether you have reduced that into cents per hundred pounds is a question with which the Interstate Commerce Commission can wrestle.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is all, Mr. Wood.

Semator BRISTOw. Before you go, I just happened to think of another question. If this reduction of 40 cents a ton would not result in the reducing of the rail rates, and thereby benefit the consumer, would the reduction in the tariff of, say, $1 a ton have any influence so far as the consumer is concerned?

Mr. WOOD. At the present time the competition is so great that the manufacturer gives every penny he can save to the buyer in order to get his orders. May I just reenforce what I said because our discussion has drifted away from the point I wanted to leave with you? The chief thought is this: The $3 difference between the vessels going from England to San Francisco and Philadelphia to San Francisco. The merchants on the Delaware River wish to maintain their west coast connections and wish to have some way found by Congress that will enable them to maintain those west coast connections instead of being bound to ship on vessels under our navigation laws, which charge two or three dollars more than is normal.

.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Is not that equivalent to saying that you want exemption from tolls for our coastwise vessels for the purpose of competing with the British foreign trade?

Mr. WOOD. Mr. Senator, I missed my point with you.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Perhaps I have missed it with you.

Mr. WOOD. The real question for Congress to consider is not the question of 40 cents a ton on tolls, but some way to permit the west coast to buy from the east coast, and the east coast to buy from the west coast, instead of their trade being forced to foreign countries

through this difference between American bottoms, and the normal price of conducting the business.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Yes; so far as you are concerned, but some of us have'some views about the treaty, and the very matter you have stated might be of some relevancy as to whether this was a discrimination against Great Britain in favor of the treaty. But that, as the Chairman says, we will judge for ourselves.

Mr. WOOD. My impression is that from the discussion I had with the British Board of Trade on the subject-because I had a couple of discussions with them on that subject

Senator BRANDEGEE. I have not been in any such association as that myself.

Mr. WOOD. Their desire was to have the treaty interpreted in its broadest sense, that they were perfectly willing to put their vessels under a handicap which would amply protect American vessels, and secure for themselves the freight, and save the business of the east and west coasts from going abroad. That is the point, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else, Mr. Wood?

Mr. WOOD. If I have made myself clear, there is nothing else.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(Thereupon, at 5 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, April 14, 1914, at 10.30 o'clock a. m.)

TUESDAY, APRIL 14, 1914.

COMMITTEE ON INTEROCEANIC CANALS,
UNITED STATES SENATE,

The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m.

Washington, D. C.

Present: Senators O'Gorman (chairman), Thornton, Shields, Thomas, Simmons, Brandegee, Bristow, Perkins, and Page. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Mr. White, if you would prefer to be heard now we would be glad to have you speak.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I am at the committee's disposal.

Senator SIMMONS. Before Mr. White begins his testimony I should like to make a statement. I noticed a statement in one of the morning papers to the effect that the three witnesses who have been examined up to this time were witnesses called by those favoring the repeal. I make this statement because I understood there was to be something in the nature of a division of time, and I am not willing that the three witnesses who testified yesterday should be charged to those who are favoring the repeal. The first witness called was Mr. Chamberlain. I think the notes of the stenographer will show that the chairman suggested the first day we met that Mr. Chamberlain should be subpoenaed. I acquiesced in that suggestion and stated that I thought Mr. Chamberlain ought to be subpoenaed. Under those circumstances I regard Mr. Chamberlain as called by both sides. I ask the chairman if that is not a fair statement as to that matter.

The CHAIRMAN. It is fair, but the Chair can not escape the thought that it is not a matter of great moment at this time to note newspaper comments and predicate statements upon them. I noticed in the press this morning, and did not feel that it was necessary to call attention to it, a statement attributed to the President that certain witnesses summoned before this committee "had got cold feet," or something of that kind. I do not believe the President ever made that statement.

Senator SIMMONS. You are wholly misunderstanding me. I am not criticizing anything the press has said.

The CHAIRMAN. But you are predicating your statement on something you saw in the press.

Senator SIMMONS. I am predicating my statement upon a statement made in the press, but it is in reference to a matter connected with our procedure, and I say that I do not desire any misunderstanding about that, and I am making this statement in order that there may be no misunderstanding on the part of the committee with reference to these three witnesses.

The second witness who was examined was Dr. Huebner, I think the stenographer's notes will show that the chairman also said at our

first meeting that he would be asked to appear. I am very glad that he did appear

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Simmons, I think, with all deference, that the statement may not be profitable, because I apprehend that every person who wants to be heard before this committee will be heard, up to the 23d of this month. We will hear them if it be necessary on the final day to sit 24 hours in the day.

Senator SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, that may be so, but I think if we are going to divide this time that we had better understand who these witnesses are subpoenaed by. I do not want any misunderstanding about it.

I want to say, with reference to Mr. Wood, that I do not know who called him. Mr. Wood wrote me a letter saying that he desired to appear on behalf of the chamber of commerce, and I sent it to the chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. To be exact, so far as that part of the record is concerned, the Chair received from Senator Simmons a letter inclosing that from Mr. Wood, which conveved a request that he be heard. And acting upon that suggestion Mr. Wood was at once wired to come before the committee.

Senator SIMMONS. I probably did suggest that Mr. Wood's request be complied with. He requested to be heard on the part of the chamber of commerce. I did not read the letter that my clerk

wrote.

Senator BRISTOW. Mr. Chairman, and Senator Simmons, why should we not invite anybody that we think has information to come before us, regardless of the side they are on?

Senator SIMMONS. I have no earthly objection to that, Senator. What I was objecting to, in order that there might be no misunderstanding about it, was a statement in the Post. There was a statement there to the effect that all of the witnesses who had been examined up to this time had been called by the proponents of this bill, so to speak, and that I did not think represented the facts. If there was to be a division of time, I wanted the record kept straight. That is all I have to say about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. White, we will hear you now.

STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY WHITE, 1624 CRESCENT PLACE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I have not asked to be heard. I have been invited by the chairman of the committee to appear.

Senator SIMMONS. Mr. White, I requested that you be asked to appear before the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you be good enough to give your name and address to the stenographer.

Mr. WHITE. Henry White, Washington, D. C.

The CHAIRMAN. You were for many years connected with the Diplomatic Service?

Mr. WHITE. For more than a quarter of a century. I entered the Diplomatic Service in 1883.

The CHAIRMAN. And connected with it until when?

Mr. WHITE. 1909.

The CHAIRMAN. In 1901 what was your position?

Mr. WHITE. I was secretary of the Embassy in London, and whenever the ambassador was away I was chargé d'affaires, the representative of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Simmons, as you requested Mr. White's presence perhaps you will direct Mr. White's attention to such testimony as you wish to elicit from him.

Senator SIMMONS. Mr. White, you say you were the secretary of the Embassy in London in 1900?

Mr. WHITE. I was.

Senator SIMMONS. That was prior to the negotiation of the HayPaunceforte treaty?

Mr. WHITE. The Hay-Paunceforte treaty, if I remember the first one was some time in

Senator SIMMONS. I am speaking about the one that was ratified. Mr. WHITE. That was in 1901; yes.

Senator SIMMONS. That was the second treaty?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Senator SIMMONS. Was the ambassador present during the negotiations with reference to that treaty?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, in reference to the second Hay-Pauncefote treaty. He acted chiefly in those negotiations en our side.

Senator SIMMONS. Was he in London?

Mr. WHITE. Yes, he was in London. Mr. Choate was in London when the negotiations took place there for the second Hay-Pauncefote treaty, the one that is now in force.

Senator SIMMONS. Were you present at the negotiations between the ambassador and the English representative?

Mr. WHITE. I was in the embassy. I was frequently in the room, and frequently not, but he talked everything over with me afterwards, so I might say I was substantially there all the time.

Senator SIMMONS. Did you have any conversations during those negotiations with Lord Pauncefote with reference to the treaty? Mr. WHITE. I met him constantly. I have no doubt that I did. I have no doubt that I did talk about the points. Of course, I remember meeting him constantly, and of course we talked about the treaty, but I do not know that anything special stands out in my mind with regard to any special point which we discussed, because the formal discussions were between him and Mr. Choate."

The CHAIRMAN. I want to say, gentlemen, that I have received from Mr. Choate, by this morning's mail, copies of some letters that passed between him and Col. Hay, and at the proper time I shall offer them in the record.

Mr. WHITE. They were the private correspondence of Mr. Choate? The CHAIRMAN. It may have been private, but he sent them here. Mr. WHITE. That is quite right. I obtained at his request permission for him to do that yesterday from the Secretary of State. Senator SIMMONS. Mr. White, will you please in your own way, without my asking you further questions about it, state to the committee what was the understanding by the negotiators, so far as you know, as to the effect of this treaty? What was their intent as to entire equal treatment with reference to vessels and to traffic?

The CHAIRMAN. I only want to suggest, Senator Simmons, with respect to that question, that of course it may be answered for what

43756-149