school myself and know what I owe to its training. The 40,000 members of this organization, scattered all over the United States, form the backbone of American citizenship of German descent. And it is in the full consciousness and pride of their American citizenship that they ask to be heard on this question where the Nation's honor is at stake. And, Mr. Chairman, though this mandate is a sufficient explanation for my appearance here, I may add that there are many more of our German-American fellow citizens who think as they do. I know it by their explicit declarations and by the tenor of their leading newspapers. I know it, because I have had the opportunity to get acquainted with their views of international relations. It is only a short time ago that I had occasion to make a canvass of the opinion of the German-Americans all over the country as to the Taft arbitration treaties. Their overwhelming majority was on the side of international good will. And it is so clear that in this case they stand on the side of national honesty-that is, that they demand the repeal of the coastwise toll exemption-that I have abstained from making another canvass, because I know they would find it vexatious and insulting to be questioned on an issue where their position is selfevident. In fact, when asking some of my New York friends to come along to support me at this hearing, they laughed at me and said: "You do not need to trouble yourself, President Wilson will have his way, because the honor of the United States will not be set back by the Senate for narrow-minded selfishness." It is hardly in place to add any arguments, Mr. Chairman, for the discussion has been so prolonged and such eminent statesmen, international lawyers, brilliant thinkers, and speakers have expressed their opinions that no new aspect can be found. I shall, with your permission, emphasize as briefly as possible only a few points in view of the stubborn contentions of the opposition They claim that the fact that we now have sovereign rights in the Canal Zone has abolished the very obligations to which we pledged ourselves when we acquired these rights. It is said that it would be utterly illogical, an infringement of our sovereign rights or, as the Representative of my own congressional district says, a national dishonor, not to discriminate in favor of our own citizens. The Welland Canal case and our conception of it has shown already that we do not hesitate to demand such illogical action, such curtailing of sovereign rights, such submission to national dishonor of others if it is to our own financial advantage. But the Welland Canal case is not the only and first precedent. Article XXXV of the well-known treaty with New Granada of 1846, approved by the United States Senate June 3, 1848, contains this clause: "That no other tolls or charges shall be levied or collected upon the citizens of the United States or their said merchandise thus passing over any road or canal that may be made by the Government of New Granada or by the authority of the same, than is under like circumstances levied upon and collected from the Granadian citizens." (Moore, Digest of International Law, Vol. III, p. 5 ff.) It is plain that we expected of New Granada what the opponents of the present treaty declare irreconcilable with the dignity of any nation. It may be of interest to observe here that German ships not on official mission do not enjoy any preferment as against foreign ships in the Baltic Canal, though this never has been the object of any treaty or negotiation. As to the interpretation of the HayPauncefote treaty, I do not understand how any controversy can arise as long as the very men who negotiated it are still alive. There certainly is room for casuistry when all competent witnesses are dead, but here is our own negotiator, who declares that it was our intention when that treaty was worded that there should be no exemption in favor of the United States. I can assure you our plain German brains can not conceive how, after this declaration of an honest man, who has one of the finest brains ever produced in America-or anywhere else, for that matter-there can be any denial of our obligations. Mr. Roosevelt said once that the mutual relations between nations and their actions ought to be the same as those between gentlemen. Well, no true gentleman would look for subterfuges to avoid plain obligations. Mr. Chairman, there are still many people in this country who have not yet come to see that we are a part of the great concert of nations, that we can not afford any more to whistle our own tune without disturbing the harmony of the civilized world. The Atlantic and the Pacific are not as wide as they were when Washington made his Farewell Address. They do not separate us any more from the rest of the world; they connect us. It may be only a figure of speech to say, "All men are brothers," but it is a fact that "all men are. neighbors." Up to nearly 100 years ago it took over 80 days, if not a hundred, to travel from Maine to Florida for man or letter. One can get around the world in 36 days to-day and communicate with any place on it in a few minutes. In 1812 it took 40 days to get from Washington to Portland, Me. To-day it takes less than half that time to reach any capital of any nation in the world and only one-eighth to go to London. Wise people like to be on good terms with their neighbors and decent people want to have their respect. The times are over when the mighty in the land would ask: "What are you going to do about it?" or say, "Damn the public." But there are some of our fellow citizens who would like the United States to take this attitude toward the rest of the world. This is certainly not the attitude of gentlemen. Nor is it gentlemanlike to insinuate that President Wilson and those who share his point of view, do so from cowardice, from fear of Great Britain-a good chance to make the eagle scream and get some Irish votes and a few German ones in their wake. Let alone that no nation ever would make war on us unless we force it on our own part, there is no true American who is afraid of any nation, least of all those who, conscious of the strength of a free people in its righteousness, are willing to await the challenge of the world without an army or navy. There is only one enemy a true American, or, for that, any true man, will fear and that is his own conscience. It is in the fear of this, to wit, that we can not stand upright in our own self respect, it is the fear that our neighbors will have a right to doubt our word and to call hypocritical our assertions of righteousness and good will, that we demand the repeal of this iniquitous provision. One word more in conclusion, Mr. Chairman. I have seen a letter, signed by a member of the United States Senate, in which this whole demand for repeal is characterized as dictated by a group of financially interested persons. I must leave it to the Senators, who are against exemption to repudiate this stupendous insinuation. But is not the interest of coastwise shipping a purely financial one? Will any American citizen outside of the ship owners concerned benefit by this exemption? They are greedy. They are protected today in a manner unheard of since the embargo of our colonial times and they enter into this new competition as it is with all the chances in their favor, and against their competitors. Our coastwise shipping places our merchant marine in the second place in the world's navigation, and it certainly does not need any further pampering. Senator WALSH. I wish to ask the witness a question or two. Doctor, what chair do you hold in Columbia University? Dr. RICHARD. The history of German civilization. Senator WALSH. How long have you been associated with the university? Dr. RICHARD. This is the eleventh year. Senator WALSH. Are you a native or naturalized citizen? Dr. RICHARD. I am a citizen for 25 years, but not a native. Senator WALSH. You speak in this matter for this gymnastic association? Dr. RICHARD. Yes, sir. Beside the fact that they have a program of physical exersises, they have a truly progressive program, are idealists, and advocate such measures as they think most promotive of the welfare of this country and mankind in general. They are the outcome of the revolutionists that came over in 1848. Senator WALSH. Is there a federation of German-American organizations in this country? Dr. RICHARD. Oh, yes. Senator WALSH. What is that known as ? Dr. RICHARD. As the German-American Alliance. Senator WALSH. That is an organization which en braces practically all of the German-American organizations of the country? Dr. RICHARD. More or less; yes. Senator WALSH. And this gymnastic association, I assume, is one of its constituent organizations? Dr. RICHARD. No. The members of the Turnerbund Societies may be members of the alliance, but the Turnerbund as such would not give up its identity. It is an old organization and has a decided political program, while the German-American Alliance avoids any questions which may split or bring fissure in their ranks. Senator WALSH. So that this gymnastic organization is not one of the constituent members of the alliance? Dr. RICHARD. Not at all. Senator WALSH. How long since this subject first received the consideration of this organization that you speak for, so far as it was expressed in any formal action? Dr. RICHARD. It has been the object of discussions, and they have certain evenings in their different societies where they discuss the questions of the day, and other important questions, but to set a date I should judge as long as the question has come up. They have a paper of their own. I have read about it as long as I can remember the question was up. Senator WALSH. President Taft two years ago expressed himself in very vigorous language contrary to the views expressed by you Doctor, you will recollect? Dr. RICHARD. Yes. Senator WALSH. To the effect that the act was not in violation of the treaty? Dr. RICHARD. Yes. Senator WALSH. Did that expression by President Taft evoke any public declaration of this organization you now represent? Dr. RICHARD. No. Senator WALSH. They had not at that time apparently been aroused to the extent at least of making any public declaration, or sending any representative to protest? Dr. RICHARD. I live in New York, but I know that in our local circles, in the circle of this organization and others, that we were all dumbfounded when this law was passed. We did not expect that it would be done. Senator WALSH. You had heard, of course, that President Roosevelt had taken the same view about the matter? Dr. RICHARD. Oh, yes. Senator WALSH. President Taft, you will recall, issued a public statement about the matter, and in fact two or three statements? Dr. RICHARD. Yes. Senator WALSH. I was a little curious to know how it is that at this time when the effort is made to repeal the act your organization has felt called upon to express itself, when it did not express itself at all when the act was originally enacted. Dr. RICHARD. As I said before, nobody seemed to expect that bill to pass. I know that in the platform of the Alliance there is one plank which treats of international relations, peace, arbitration, and faithfulness to treaties, and there did not seem to be any call for that. And I myself, although I am greatly interested in this question, perhaps more than any others, and had followed it very closely, did not expect this bill to pass. That is the fact. Senator WALSH. But I should naturally imagine that when the President of the United States was asking that it should be passed, or at least approving of the passage of it, it might have aroused some interest in your organization. Dr. RICHARD. Oh, yes; it did. Some of us who admired President Taft, and the stand he took on the arbitration treaties, were greatly disappointed in his stand. Senator WALSH. Of course, Doctor, you appreciate that what is in my mind is that there must have been some influence operative when you made no protest at the time that President Taft declared his views upon this matter in opposition to what you entertained, and now you come forward to express very vigorously your idea about it. Dr. RICHARD. That may be, that I was remiss in my duty at that time. Senator WALSH. I do not refer to you personally. I refer to your organization. Dr. RICHARD. I am the one in the organization who generally calls attention to things if they come to my attention, you see, and you see one has always to think of matters. You know what that is. Senator WALSH. Who is the president of the gymnastic association? Dr. RICHARD. Mr. Theodore Stempfel. He was president of a bank in Columbus. The officers are all in Indianapolis. They have their convention every three years, and they select one city where the officers and the whole organization are. They have been in Indianapolis for some time. Senator WALSH. When did they hold their last annual convention? Dr. RICHARD. I should judge in June, but I am not certain about it. Senator WALSH. This very question was pending in Congress at that time. Did they make any declaration about it at that time? Dr. RICHARD. I do not remember. Senator WALSH. You think there has been no general assemblage of delegates since June, 1912? Dr. RICHARD. No; I do not think so. Senator WALSII. From what source, then, Doctor, does your delegation come? Dr. RICHARD. I am, as I said, delegated by the board of officers. The president, in the dispatch which I have quoted, already says that he certainly can not stand for the opinion of every individual, but that he was perfectly sure that the overwhelming majority would be in favor of his stand, and that therefore the board of officers felt authorized to let me speak here. And it is in keeping with the whole history of the organization. Senator WALSH. The direct letter authorizing you comes from the president? Dr. RICHARD. Yes. It is directly on behalf of the board of officers, not of the president. Senator WALSH. Do you know that the board assembled for the purpose of considering this subject? Dr. RICHARD. I do not know. I got the order by telegram and I had no doubt about it. Senator WALSII. Who is the president of Columbia University? Dr. RICHARD. Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler. Senator WALSH. He is associated in some way with the Carnegie Endowment, is he not? Dr. RICHARD. Yes. Senator WALSH. What relation does he sustain to that organization? Dr. RICHARD. One of the departments is the peace propaganda department, and I think he is at the head of that department. But I may say, of course, Dr. Butler was not asked whether I should come here or not. I would have asked permission if the hearing could have been to-morrow, but I had to rush off yesterday. Senator WALSH. You assumed, of course, there would be no objection to your going anywhere to express your view upon any question? Dr. RICHARD. You see, university teachers are not, of course, journeymen. If we make arrangements with the students that we can give the lecture at another time for one day, we do not need to ask any leave of absence. |