Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator BRANDEGEE. When you had this first interview with Lord Salisbury, in which he was prescribing the conditions upon which his Government would probably entertain a proposal to supersede the Clayton-Bulwer treaty by a new treaty, and he said substantially that they would entertain it upon condition that the ships of all nations were given equality of treatment, did it occur to you to say, "Yes; we will agree to equality of treatment, except that we reserve the right to discriminate in favor of our own coastwise shipping"? Mr. WHITE. It certainly did not. I never said a word on the subject. It never occurred to me for a moment.

Senator BRISTOw. If you had been familiar with the provisions of the treaty of 1815, and understood that coastwise vessels were not included within that language, you would not have thought there was any occasion to have referred to coastwise vessels in connection with it, would you?

Mr. WHITE. I should in no case have done so. I should not have raised the question unless I had been told by Mr. Hay to do so. A diplomatist is very careful not to raise any unnecessary questions. But the idea never struck me at all, or I would have said something about it in private letters to Mr. Hay, and I suppose he would have to me. I wrote him about all manner of subjects pertaining to our Government's interests that suggested themselves to my mind. That is the business of a diplomatist, to write to his chief at home about all kinds of possibilities. I never thought of that point from beginning to end; neither did anyone else, so far as I know.

Senator BRISTOW. I have been interested-of course, I do not understand these matters very well-to know why it was necessary originally for us to make a treaty with Great Britain in regard to the construction of this canal.

Mr. WHITE. You are referring now to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty? Senator BRISTOW. Yes. What right had England to prescribe any conditions which we should act upon in the construction of this canal?

Mr. WHITE. You are referring now to the original Clayton-Bulwer treaty?

Senator BRISTOW. Yes.

Mr. WHITE. As I remember the history of that period, we were at the time-in fact, continued to be, so far as foreign nations were concerned-a pretty weak power until after the Civil War. I think foreign nations as a rule thought we would be likely to break up sooner or latter

The CHAIRMAN. We had already declared the Monroe doctrine before 1850?

Mr. WHITE. I think the Monroe doctrine was just respected in so far as they thought we had strength to maintain it, and I think they were doubtful as to how long we should remain united as a nation to maintain that strength. And one of the strongest proofs of that is that no nation ever bought an embassy house here until after the Civil War. That is one of the strongest proofs you can get of a foreign nation's belief in the permanency of a particular country. They never buy embassy houses in countries of whose permanent existence they do not feel pretty confident.

The CHAIRMAN. How many embassies have permanent residences here?

Mr. WHTE. The British, the Russians, the Germans, the Italians, and the Argentines. The French have long since bought land and are shortly going to build an important embassy house, I understand. The CHAIRMAN. Do you think all the other foreign nations entertain a doubt as to whether we are going to be permanent as a nation? Mr. WHITE. Oh, no; they do not. I am speaking of those days when there were very few important world powers. England and France in those days were the great powers in this part of the world besides ourselves. In any case, the smaller powers do not usually buy houses for their legations.

Senator BRISTOw. Your view is, then, that England, not knowing whether the United States would establish itself as a stable and permanent government, did not want this canal built by us, fearing that it might fall into the hands of some of her enemies?

Mr. WHITE. I think I rather digressed from your original question. England had taken possession, so far as I know, of the Mosquito coast and owned British Honduras, and she seemed to be showing a tendency to establish a hold on the various localities in the proximity to which the canal was likely to be built, and I think our people thought we had done a clever thing in negotiating the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.

The CHAIRMAN. She was settling there in disregard of the rights of Nicaragua, was she not?

Mr. WHITE. That is my recollection.

The CHAIRMAN. She had no right there?

Mr. WHITE. She established a protectorate over the Mosquito coast.

The CHAIRMAN. She pretended to establish a protectorate over a band of 10,000 Indians, and made the Indian chief a king and put a high hat on him.

Mr. WHITE. Then, there was British Honduras. They were also cruising about on the Pacific. We felt pretty uneasy for fear she would get control of that region, so far as I remember. I speak subject to correction. We thought we had done a big thing in negotiating at that time the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which gave us equal rights with all.

The CHAIRMAN. That is not the verdict of history, that we did a big thing.

Mr. WHITE. I think it was at the time so thought.

The CHAIRMAN. No; it is generally regarded as an act of cowardice of Mr. Clayton and the Government he represented at that time. It provoked an intense feeling at that time.

Senator THOMAS. Its chief opposition came from Senator Douglass in the Senate.

Mr. WHITE. At all events, I think our Government thought they had done a pretty clever thing in getting England to agree to share with us any action that might take place to interocean communication in that region.

Senator BRISTOW. As I understand, the claim of England's right to have a say in what we should do there was based upon her interests on the Mosquito coast, which is a part of British Honduras.

Mr. WHITE. Do you mean with reference to the present question, the question now at issue?

Senator BRISTOW. No; I am speaking of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. What I wanted to get at, Mr. White, is where England first established her claim to dictate to us and to everybody as to what should be done at Panama?

Senator THORNTON. I suggest here that if the witness would be allowed to go back and resume what he was saying at the time he was interrupted by the chairman, what he was saying in response to the question of Senator Bristow, that then we will get along perhaps better, and in a more connected way. I request that the secretary now read to the witness, Mr. White, just as far as he had gone before he was asked the question by the chairman, and then he will proceed in the way that he would have proceeded if it had not been for the question which was raised by the chair, and which was followed then by a digression on other matters.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. White, do you remember the original question? Mr. WHITE. I think the original question substantially was what gave England the right to have a say there.

The CHAIRMAN. If you have anything you wish to say in answer to that you may proceed now.

Mr. WHITE. I do not think I have anything more to say. If the Senator does not think I have answered his question I should like to do so to the best of my ability.

Senator BRISTOW. I wanted to develop, if I could, your views in regard to that matter, because it is very interesting to me. I understand now, to clear up the confusion that might come from the digression, the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was entered into by us because England was claiming some rights there in regard to the construction of the canal across the Isthmus, and those claims were based upon her interest in the Mosquito coast?

Mr. WHITE. I think a more correct way of describing it would be to say that she acted as though she meant to take a general control over that region. I think that would be a more accurate and less less definite way of putting it, because I do not think I could put my finger on any definite act without refreshing my memory by reading up the history of that period.

Senator SIMMONS. Let me ask

Senator BRISTOw. I do not want to have to go back, Senator, because I have a connected line of questions that I want to develop if I can. Mr. White has much more knowledge in regard to the matter than I have.

The interests of Great Britain in this Mosquito Coast--how did she acquire that interest there?

Mr. WHITE. I am afraid I should not like to answer that for fear of being inaccurate, without looking it up. I have not looked it up lately.

Senator BRISTOw. I have understood-and I ask this to see if it corroborates any views that you have upon the matter that the Mosquito Coast was settled by negro slaves that escaped, and were aided in escaping from the West India Islands by British seamen and vessels, and that England having helped these negroes to escape, and having planted them there, regarded them as English subjects, and in that way she gradually assumed a right to govern what they called the Mosquito Coast.

Mr. WHITE. I have heard that stated, but I really

Senator BRANDEGEE. Do you know anything about it except what you have heard said and what you have read in history? Mr. WHITE. No; absolutely nothing.

Senator BRANDEGEE. All that you know is accessible to us?

Mr. WHITE. I have no private information on that question at all. I have never gone into it deeply.

Senator BRISTOW. A great many things are accessible to us

Senator BRANDEGEE. Yes; that we do not want to take the trouble to look up ourselves.

Senator BRISTOw. I might want some information in regard to a law question, and I would go to a lawyer who is supposed to know about it instead of reading the law books myself. I think that is customary.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I think it would be an improvement, at any

rate.

Senator THOMAS. I may say that the history of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty has been published by the Michigan Political Science Association, the author being Ira Dudley Travers, and it contains a complete and exhaustive account of all of the conditions which led up to and which existed at the time and subsequent to these negotiations. I have one copy of it, which is at the disposal of the committee at any time, or any of its members.

The CHAIRMAN. When was it published?

Senator THOMAS. In 1900.

Senator BRISTOW. Mr. White, do you know of any other basis of claim that England has to the Mosquito coast and that little region there that she has dominion of, than that which has been suggested?

Mr. WHITE. I certainly do not know of any other. I do not really profess to be an authority on that subject, and of course all that we are discussing now seems to me to depend upon the ClaytonBulwer treaty.

Senator BRISTOw. I was trying to get at the beginning of this claim of Great Britain to dominion of our commerce, as well as the commerce of the world, so far as Panama is concerned.

Senator THOMAS. Do you recall the fact, Mr. White, that at and immediately before the commencement of the negotiations which led to the drawing and the ratification of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty that the discoveries of gold had attracted an enormous emigration to California, and that it was then assumed that the most feasible and perhaps the only route or line of communication would be by a canal, or some other line of communication, through Nicaragua ? Mr. WHITE. I think that undoubtedly was so.

Senator THOMAS. And which had a great influence in causing the United States to consent to negotiations leading up to that treaty?

Mr. WHITE. I think our Government felt that it ought to be getting busy; trying at all events to do the best it could to get direct control.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Mr. White, at the time you were having these talks of a preliminary nature with Lord Salisbury, the question of the equality of treatment of the ships of the nations so alluded to, you know at that time, did you not, in 1901

Mr. WHITE. 1898 was the time to which you refer.

Senator BRANDEGEE. 1898. The treaty was finally concluded in 1901?

Mr. WHITE. Yes.

Senator BRANDEGEE. You knew that our American shipping in the foreign trade was comparatively an insignificant thing, did you not?

Mr. WHITE. I did, indeed.

Senator BRANDEGEE. You knew, on the other hand, that our shipping engaged in the coastwise trade was a very important thing, did you not?

Mr. WHITE. I did.

Senator BRANDEGEE. A very large interest?

Mr. WHITE. I have always understood so.

Senator BRANDEGEE. So that when the question of our right under any treaty that might be negotiated to exempt our ships in our domestic or coastwise trade, when you were negotiating, knowing these circumstances, the difference of our interest in foreign shipping and our coastwise trade, the question of our right to exempt our coastwise trade was never raised at all?

Mr. WHITE. Never. Of that there is absolutely no question. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions to be asked of the witness? We are very much indebted to you, Mr. White.

STATEMENT OF PROF. EMORY R. JOHNSON, PROFESSOR OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMERCE, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

The CHAIRMAN. Prof. Johnson, give your full name and address to the stenographer?

Prof. JOHNSON. Emory R. Johnson, Philadelphia, Pa.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your occupation?

Prof. JOHNSON. Professor of transportation and commerce at the University of Pennsylvania, member of the Public Service Commission of Pennsylvania, and from August 1, 1911, until October 4, 1913, I served as special commissioner on Panama Canal traffic and tolls. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Simmons, I think it was at your suggestion that we invited the professor to appear. Perhaps you would like to propound your questions.

Senator BRANDEGEE. Were you engaged in this same line of work in relation to the Panama Canal before 1911?

Prof. JOHNSON. From June, 1899, until March, 1904, I was a member of the Isthmian Canal Commission.

Senator BRANDEGEE. The reason I am asking this question of a preliminary nature is this: My recollection is that you were employed by President Taft to bring some previous work you had done, or some previous investigation in relation to the probable shipments that would pass through the canal, down to date

Prof. JOHNSON. I was appointed on the Canal Commission in 1899 by President McKinley as the economist member of the commission, with the understanding that I should devote my time largely to the study of the several routes from the commercial point of view, which I did, and I prepared for the Isthmian Canal Commission a rather extended report upon the industrial and commercial value of the Isthmian Canal, which report was made a part of the report of the

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »