The CHAIRMAN A membership two or three times as large as the chamber of commerce?

Mr. RING. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know what action that association took-Mr. RING. No; I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. With regard to the subject of repeal, about the time that the chamber of commerce acted?

Mr. RING. No; I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of fact, they passed resolutions opposing the repeal. I do not know by what vote. Did you ever hear of that?

Mr. RING. I know the matter was under discussion, but I do not know what the result of the discussion was.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any idea as to how much money has been expended by the State of New York in the construction and maintenance of the Erie Canal?

Mr. RING. The first one, or

The CHAIRMAN. The present canal.

Mr. RING. We are supposed to expend about $130,000,000, but how much has been expended I do not know.

The CHAIRMAN. That is a free canal?

Mr. RING. A free canal.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the chamber ever taken any action or passed any resolutions as to whether it favored a free or toll canal in the State of New York?

Mr. RING. I think not.

Senator SIMMONS. Just one question. The Erie Canal is used entirely by domestic vessels, is it not?

Mr. RING. Entirely.

Senator SIMMONS. If the Erie Canal was used chiefly for foreign vessels, you do not know what might be the attitude of the people of New York with reference to it?

Mr. RING. No.

Senator WALSH. Have you any idea, now, as to whether tolls ought or ought not to be exacted?

Mr. RING. On the Erie Canal?

Senator WALSH. Yes.

Mr. RING. The State is paying for the canal with a view of having it a free canal.

Senator WALSH. Why, then, would you take a position that the Erie Canal should be free, when you announced very positively a while ago that your conviction was that the Panama Čanal should not be like the Soo Canal?

Mr. RING. Because the Erie Canal would be operated like a domestic enterprise, and the Panama Canal will be operated like a worldwide enterprise.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ring, do you not know that Canadian and other ships use the Erie Canal without the payment of any tax or tolls?

Mr. RING. I do not know that to be the fact. I think it is quite probable, however.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is the fact. I only call your attention to that because you said no foreign ships used it.

Senator SIMMONS. You know also that Canada reciprocates and allows American vessels to use her canals free of tolls?

Mr. RING. I know that.

Senator SIMMONS. And you know the further fact that the American tonnage going through the Soo is about four or five times as great as the Canadian tonnage going through the Soo?

Mr. RING. I do. I also know that the Canadians at one time, after the canal was opened on the basis of both countries being treated alike, paid a rebate of 18 cents a ton out of 20 cents a ton to the Canadian shipowners, and that matter was brought to the knowledge of the American Government and a protest was made, and Canada ceased to do it, placing both the United States and Canada on the same basis.

Senator BRISTOW. Mr. Ring, we have expended something over $120,000,000 on the Mississippi River to make it navigable. Would you advise the fixing of tolls on the vessels that use that river in order to reimburse the Government for this great expenditure? Mr. RING. Why, no.

Senator BRISTOw. Why not?

Mr. RING. It is practically a domestic enterprise.

Senator BRISTOW. But foreign ships enter it just the same as they enter any harbor of the United States and use it just the same, do they not?

Mr. RING. I see no reason why tolls should be exacted on the Mississippi River.

Senator BRISTOW. But you do see a reason why they should be at Panama?

Mr. RING. I do.

Senator BRISTOW. What distinction do you make between the

two?

Mr. RING. One is a world-wide enterprise and the other is practically a domestic enterprise.

Senator BRISTOW. A domestic enterprise-but the Mississippi River runs within American territory, and the Panama Canal is in American territory, ceded to us, is it not?

Mr. RING. It is on leased territory.

Senator BRISTOW. We govern it. We have exclusive jurisdiction over it just as much as we have Louisiana, have we not?

Senator SIMMONS. Do you know of any nation in the world that charges tolls for the use of their commercial harbors, for the navigation of their inland rivers?

Mr. RING. I do not.

Senator SIMMONS. We do not charge English vessels for the use of our harbors, and England does not charge us for the use of her harbors, and Germany the same way?

Mr. RING. I believe that to be correct.

Senator SIMMONS. But England, owning a majority of the stock in the Suez Canal, does charge a toll to our vessels and the vessels of all other nations?

Mr. RING. That is correct.

Senator SIMMONS. And the Suez Canal and the Panama Canal are analogous as affording passage for vessels of the world?

Mr. RING. They are.

Senator SIMMONS. England and the other countries of the world that control it, charge a toll there just the same as we propose to charge at Panama, but England does not charge tolls for harbors and her inland waters, just as we do not charge tolls for our harbors and inland. waters?

Mr. RING. Yes, as I understand it.

Senator SHIELDS. You spoke of the Canadian Government discriminating against American vessels passing through their canals, and that on a protest by the United States they abandoned that discrimination. Is it not a fact that it was abandoned because tolls were levied under an act of Congress on Canadian vessels passing through the Soo until Canada should withdraw its discrimination in the Welland Canal, and that it was on that account that Canada abandoned it, and not because of the protest of the United States?

Mr. RING. I could not tell you what the actual cause was, but it is generally understood when the United States did protest to Canada against the exaction of those tolls that the Canadians ceased to do it. Senator SHIELDS. Is it not, on the contrary, the fact that Canada refused to act on that protest, and that Congress passed an act levying tolls through the Soo Canal, and then a settlement was broached?

Mr. RING. That I do not know.

Senator SIMMONS. The facts about that are these, are they not: The Canadian Government imposed one rate of tolls for vessels of both nations sailing from a Canadian port, to wit, 2 cents a ton, and a different rate on vessels, both of Canada and the United States, sailing from this side of, I think, 18 cents.

Senator WALSH. I think you are in error about that.
Senator SIMMONS. Will you point out the error?

Senator WALSH. Tolls of 20 cents were imposed upon Canadian ships going to Canadian ports as far as Montreal, but receiving a rebate of 18 cents.

Senator OWEN. Carrying freight to Montreal and points east.

Senator SIMMONS. My idea is that this discrimination was in requiring the fixing of one rate of toll on the Canadian side and a different rate of toll on the American side. You think I am in error about that?

Senator Walsh. Yes.

Senator OWEN. It had the effect of a rebate against the American ship of 18 cents. That was the effect of it.

Senator SIMMONS. And we protested very vigorously, and while that controversy was going on we passed some discriminatory legislation to force them to recognize what we contended were our treaty rights on that matter.

Mr. RING. I am not familiar with that, but I think

Senator SIMMONS. That is a matter of history.

Senator OWEN. That is what occurred.

Senator SIMMONS. I want to ask you this: In that case Canada was assuming to interpret this treaty for itself, and was interpreting it in a different way from which the people of the United States interpreted it, and she persisted in that interpretation, and we replied by retaliatory legislation which brought them to terms; is not that true? Mr. RING. That is true.

Senator SIMMONS. If we persist in our interpretation and England persists in her interpretation, and refuses to yield, do you or do you not think that England might reply just as we replied to Canada, with discriminating legislation against us wherever she can?

Mr. RING. It is quite possible they might. It is a difficult question for me to answer.

Senator WALSH. Permit me to inquire if we have available the correspondence concerning the incident now referred to between our department and the Provincial Government.

Senator OWEN. The whole matter is in Moore's International Digest.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it is all in Moore's International Digest. Senator SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, in the observations of the chairman a few moments ago, the chairman stated what the Association of Merchants'-I do not know by what term he called it

The CHAIRMAN. The Merchants' Association of New York. Senator SIMMONS (continuing). To what action they had taken about this matter. The chairman made that statement, and it is entered of record. The witness says he does not know anything about that. I should be very glad if the witness would ascertain the facts about that and furnish them to the committee, or maybe we might want to recall the witness about that.

Mr. RING. I think when you call Mr. Page or Mr. Outerbridge-— The CHAIRMAN. I want to say, Senator Simmons

Senator SIMMONS. I am not questioning what you say. I want to know.

The CHAIRMAN. The resolution passed by the Merchants' Association of New York you will find in the hearings of this committee, taken nearly two years ago, so the clerk of the committee informs me. Senator ŠIMMONS. I have not seen it.

Senator BRISTOW. Mr. Ring, I believe you said you were engaged in the export business?

Mr. RING. Yes; export and import.

Senator BRISTOW. What line of goods do you export and import? Mr. RING. Practically everything that is manufactured, with the exception of liquors.

Senator BRISTOW. You think that the tolls will not benefit the public any? Do you believe that a tariff on imported goods increases the cost of goods which you sell to your customers?

Mr. RING. Naturally it does.

Senator BRISTOw. What is the tariff on some of the things which you import? Give me some of the articles.

Mr. RING. We are not dealing so largely in importations, but we do deal more particularly in wool, and that, as you know, has been changed.

Senator BRISTOw. Do you think clothes are cheaper because of free wool than they would be if the tax were imposed on wool?

Mr. RING. I have not seen it yet. They should be, but I have not

seen it.

Senator BRISTOW. Do you think that the tariff on any imported articles increases its price to the consumer?

Mr. RING. Why, it must, naturally.

Senator BRISTOW. Why do you distinguish between a charge on goods that are sold to the general public, increasing the price, and a charge of freight on goods that might be sold to the public?

Mr. RING. I did not quite catch that.

Senator BRISTOw. You import wool, we will say. You will import a thousand pounds of wool, and you will sell it. Do you sell that cheaper than you did before the duty was removed?

Mr. RING. We naturally would unless the market had advanced. Senator BRISTOw. That is, do you give the advantage of the reduced tariff to your customers?

Mr. RING. Undoubtedly; we have to.

Senator BRISTOw. Suppose that the freight on that wool was increased, would you charge that increase in the rate, so that your customers would be compelled to pay it?

Mr. RING. We would figure on the freight in the cost of the goods. Senator BRISTOw. Why should you figure any differently importing wool on the charges that may be imposed on it than you would on any article that was shipped in a vessel that had to pay tolls! Why is the tolls on a vessel for passing through the canal any different than the charge on goods passing through the customhouse, in principle?

Mr. RING. Naturally the cost of operating the ship would enter into the freight rate, and that would enter into the cost of the goods. Senator BRISTOw. Entering into the cost of the goods would make it cost the people more than it otherwise would, would it not? Mr. RING. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all, Mr. Ring.

Mr. RING. May I just make this one statement in closing?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. RING. I am very strongly in favor of the repeal of this clause. This country has ceased to be a very large exporter of cereals, and we must depend upon our manufactured articles more fully in the future for our foreign trade. We are developing it very rapidly, and I do not think there is anything that will assist exporters and manufac turers more in the development of the foreign trade than the repeal of this clause. It will show that the United States when in error is willing to change and put themselves in the right, and it will aid very materially our foreign trade, and our relations as between merchants in the foreign countries, if we take this action.

Senator BRISTOW. I infer from that that you think the foreign countries are hostile to our interpretation of the treaty made by Mr. Roosevelt, Mr. Taft, the Congress, by Mr. Wilson before his election, and the Democratic convention. You think that offended the foreign countries?

Mr. RING. I think to a degree it has.

Senator BRISTOW. What countries have been offended?

Mr. RING. I think practically all countries where we are seeking trade.

Senator BRISTOW. Have you had any evidence of that?

Mr. RING. I have evidence to the extent of correspondence, more particularly with Australia and New Zealand, where we import large quantities of wool from.

Senator BRISTOw. That is English territory. Is there any other country except England?