Mr. SCOTT. I take it that I have a perfect right to express my view as to the meaning of an international treaty, and, furthermore, that the correct interpretation of an international

Senator WALSH. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, although the question of Senator Bristow was not very direct, I do not think Mr. Scott is answering it at all.

The CHAIRMAN. The stenographer will repeat the question.

The stenographer read the question of Senator Bristow, as follows: Therefore, when two nations agree you have no business there because there are no differences?

The CHAIRMAN. That is self-evident.

Mr. SCOTT. That is why I said it was difficult for me to state anything. I was hoping he would go on and give me a chance to

answer it.

Senator BRISTOW. That is the question. When there is no dispute between two countries, why, then, your mission is not to go in and advocate your side and try to create a dispute, is it?

Mr. SCOTT. I think I can answer your question, no.

Senator BRISTOW. Do you not believe, Mr. Scott, that if the adjustment of the Panama tolls matter had been left to the diplomatic officers of the two Governments it probably could have been adjusted very much quicker, and very much more satisfactorily to both, without the interference of your peace society?

Mr. SCOTT. You are asking me for a subject upon which I can throw no light. I can not say whether the matter would have been adjusted through diplomatic channels or not. I am perfectly sincere in that; I do not know. Coming now to another part of your question, I think you are attributing rather too great importance to the small success, if any, which has resulted from the circulation of these two documents. I can not answer that more definitely.

Senator BRISTOw. With a half a million dollars at your disposal, with these different societies with which you are affiliated, and to which you contribute, with all the ramifications, this Conciliation Society, the Teaching Society, the Church Society, the American Peace Society, and circulating a partisan document, criticizing our own Government for the attitude it has taken through its Congress and its executive officers, the President, arraigning it as unfaithful and untrue and dishonorable in its conduct, which Senator Root's speech did

Mr. SCOTT. That is, of course, they

Senator BRISTOW. That is my statement. I assume the responsi bility for that statement. When your society with its enormous fund behind it circulates more than 700,000 copies of those speeches337,000 to farmers, 110,000 to lawyers, 85,000 to bank directors, 137,000 to physicians, 95,000 to clergymen, 3,590 to country school superintendents, 150,000 to country general stores, 40,000 to dentists, 48,000 to druggists, 73,000 to real estate agents, 25,000 to mewspapers and periodicals, 1,500 to chambers of commerce, and 95,000 to manufacturers, when your society circulates a document of that character, are you not taking part in a political controversy that is more likely to create international distrubance than to relieve it?

Mr. SCOTT. I should be very sorry if the first conclusion should be true-very sorry, indeed.

Senator BRISTOw. As a matter of fact, is not the opinion of the former Secretary of State, Mr. Knox, that if the two Governments had been let alone without the interference of outside interested parties, this controversy would long ago have been settled to the satisfaction of both?

Mr. SCOTT. I shall have to let you answer that question, or let the former Secretary of State answer it.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you seen that statement in the public press? Mr. SCOTT. Never.

The CHAIRMAN. Has your society taken any notice of it?

Mr. SCOTT. Our society has not taken any notice of it.
The CHAIRMAN. It has not contradicted it in any way?

Mr. Scort. It has not made any statement in regard to it at all, and so far as I know it certainly has never been called to their attention officially. Individually, they may have read the newspapers. The CHAIRMAN. What do you understand that statement to be as it has appeared in the press?

Mr. SCOTT. That Mr. Knox

The CHAIRMAN. The Secretary of State.

Mr. SCOTT. That the Secretary of State believed that he could have settled the matter through diplomatic channels, had he been permitted to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Has not the statement been made through the press that Secretary Knox had practically adjusted the matter with the British Government four days before Senator Root made his speech, which you subsequently circulated all over the country, favorable to repeal? Have you not seen that statement?

Mr. SCOTT. I have not seen the statement couched in just that

form.

Senator BRISTOw. Have you not also seen it stated that Senator Root and Mr. Carnegie were exceedingly wroth because Great Britain had conceded in effect in her communications with Mr. Knox, or in the communication of her representative with Mr. Knox, that coastwise trade vessels passing through the canal might not be in any way objectionable to Great Britain?

Mr. SCOTT. I had not seen such a statement. I do not know whether it may have appeared or not. I have not seen it. Senator BRISTOW. Has it not been stated more than once recently

The CHAIRMAN. It was stated on the floor of the Senate 10 days ago by Senator Works-part of that statement.

Senator BRISTOW (continuing). That the State Department had practically understood that the representative of Great Britain had consented and yielded to the adjustment of the law by which the exemption was given to coastwise vessels only, and in a written communication signed by Mr. Innes, was it not, or some such nameThe CHAIRMAN. Yes; that was the first note of protest.

Senator BRISTOW (continuing). Contained statements to that effect?

Mr. SCOTT. The note of Mr. Innes would be the best evidence of its contents. Subject, however, to that statement, I did not gather that when I read it. I gathered when I read Mr. Innes's note that while His Majesty's Government might be willing to admit that the

coastwise trade if limited to what would be considered strictly coastwise trade might not be a violation of the treaty, nevertheless His Majesty's Government thought that could not be done. I believe the note of Mr. Innes was on the 8th of July, and on the 24th of August of that year the canal act was passed, which did not attempt to limit or regulate, but exempted the American coastwise trade in its entirety. In November-i have forgotten the exact date-of the same year, Sir Edward Grey sent a longer note, and I believe it was in January of the next year that Senator Root delivered his speech. So that the protest of Great Britain, which had been made July 8, had been reenforced by an elaborate note of Sir Edward Grey, His Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, in November, and the impending cause of all this apparently was a speech delivered in January, after those two state papers had been apparently delivered to the Department of State and had been given to the press.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you pardon one question, Senator?

Senator BRISTOW. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever hear, Mr. Scott, that after Sir Edward Grey sent the second note of protest, Mr. Knox, our Secretary of State, and Mr. Bryce, the British Ambassador, had conferences and negotiations which it has been said resulted in the British Government expressing acquiescence in the situation, having been assured that any exemption extended to American coastwise vessels would not impose upon British or foreign vessels more than their pro rata share of the burden of the upkeep of the canal?

Mr. SCOTT. I can not say that I have, Mr. Chairman. I have no doubt whatever that interviews took place between the Secretary of State and Ambassador Bryce, and that they may have touched a vast range of subjects, but I do not know just what subjects may have been discussed, and it is merely for that reason that I say I do not know. I should like to say that Mr. Root's speech was made on January 21, four days after the State Department had declined to admit any of the British statements. And I should like further to state that on February 27, four days before Mr. Knox went out of office, the British declined in a formal note to accept the American proposals.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever hear it stated in connection with that, that notwithstanding the previous satisfactory outcome of the negotiations between Mr. Knox and Mr. Bryce, in view of the effort to repeal, which meanwhile occurred, and the reasons offered in support of the repeal, that the representatives of the British Government said that the Government for its own protection could not accept the position taken by the United States Government, particularly in view of the very excellent reasons offered by other officials of the United States Government inconsistent with the previous arguments of the administration itself?

Mr. SCOTT. No, sir.

Senator WALSH. You would recognize that, however, as the natural attitude they would take?

Mr. SCOTT. It might be so or might not be so. But I was just responding directly to the chairman's question.

Senator WALSH. You were at one time Solicitor of the State Department, and I put the question to you as an expert in interna

tional law and diplomatic negotiations; you would recognize that as the most natural attitude, would you not, for the British Government to take under the circumstances?

Mr. SCOTT. When there was a difference of opinion between the different departments of the Government?

Senator WALSH. That when an eminent Senator, a former Secretary of State, arose in the Senate of the United States and advanced the position very solemnly that their attitude was correct, you would scarcely expect them thereafter to recede from the attitude that they had theretofore occupied and consent to the interpretation insisted upon by the State Department?

Mr. SCOTT. That is a very difficult question to answer. sibly it might be, if I occupied the position

OstenSenator WALSH. I want you to assume now you are the prime minister of England.

Mr. SCOTT. But I should rather assume the office I hold. After all I am an American citizen.

Senator WALSH. Suppose you were solicitor to the prime minister of England.

Mr. SCOTT. No; I will not assume that. I will assume the position that I was Solicitor for the Department of State, and a statement was made in the British Parliament by a very distinguished member of Parliament?

Senator WALSH. Yes.

Mr. Scorr. I think, sir, that would depend entirely upon the position of influence, the influence which the member of Parliament was known to possess, and the fact that he did not carry the house with him would lead me- while I would be glad that such powerful support was on my side, nevertheless I would not be deceived by it. In dealing with the Government you do not deal with individual members of Parliament.

Senator BRISTOW. You would not be deceived by it.

The CHAIRMAN. Right in that connection, if you will pardon me, I should like to ask you this question, Mr. Scott: As one who has had experience in diplomatic affairs and governmental affairs, you, of course, appreciate the difficulties that the English Government would encounter in receding from its previous position regarding the controversy when attention could be called by the opponents of the English Government in England to the very substantial support given by Americans to a contrary view?

Mr. SCOTT. I merely reply to that, Mr. Chairman, by the statement that I have made that the British Government had presented its two protests in July and November, and Mr. Root's speech was made. on January 21, four days after the State Department declined to admit any of the British statements, and the only subsequent communication on the matter of the tolls, so far as I know, was a very brief note of a few paragraphs, presented by Ambassador Bryce, practically standing upon the views advanced and requesting arbitration. That is all I can answer.

Senator SIMMONS. That speech of Senator Root's was made upon a bill that he introduced to repeal the tolls, was it not?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMMONS. Do you know what response the Senate made at that time to Senator Root's speech and bill, if any?

Mr. SCOTT. In what regard?

Senator SIMMONS. What action it took.

Mr. SCOTT. None. That is to say, no favorable action.

The CHAIRMAN. For the record, if you want it in, it was referred to this committee, and by vote of 13 to 1 it was placed on the table. Senator SIMMONS. That was therefore an indication that Mr. Root's expression at that time did not reflect the opinion of the United States Senate?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes; it would seem to me very clear.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know whether President Taft or Secretary Knox had any intimation that Senator Root was going to introduce a bill to repeal the exemption before it was actually introduced in the Senate?

Mr. SCOTT. I do not know, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever hear anything on that subject?
Mr. SCOTT. I can not say.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you any impression on the subject?
Mr. SCOTT. That-

The CHAIRMAN. That neither President Taft nor Secretary Knox ever heard directly or indirectly that such a bill was to be introduced until after it had been introduced by Senator Root?

Mr. SCOTT. As to that I can not say.

Senator BRISTOW. Mr. Scott, you say that four days after Secretary Knox had refused to concede England's demands Senator Root made his speech?

Mr. Scort. So I understand.

Senator BRISTOW. Then this propaganda began against this position of our own Government and in favor of the English contention? Mr. SCOTT. Reserving the expression "English contention," I would say that the statement of certain members of the board of trustees bears date March 15, 1913.

Senator BRISTOw. Yes; that is after Senator Root's speech, and Senator Root's speech was made just after Secretary Knox had declined the English

Mr. SCOTT. The 21st day of January was Mr. Root's speech, and the new administration was then in office.

The CHAIRMAN. The new administration?

Mr. SCOTT. I was referring, sir, to the date of March 15, 1913. The CHAIRMAN. The new administration did not come in until March 4, 1913.

Mr. SCOTT. Exactly; and this is March 15 that I refer to.

Senator WALSH. He is speaking of the date of the circular. Senator BRISTOw. I understood you to say that Mr. Root's speech was made after the new administration came in.

Mr. SCOTT. Oh, no.

Senator BRISTOW. But the circular followed Senator Root's speech, and Senator Root's speech was circulated by your board of directors, and it was made immediately after our Government had refused the English demand formally?

Mr. SCOTT. I think I can best answer that by saying that the senior Senator from New York is no doubt responsible for his conduct and can better explain his motives than I can.

Senator BRISTOw. I am not questioning the Senator's motives. I am asking you for a fact.