or, having paid such duties, they shall be entitled drawback upon their exportation; nor shall the citizens of the United States be liable to any duties, tolls or charges of any kind, to which native citizens are not subjected for thus passing the said Isthmus. And, in order to secure to themselves the tranquil and constant enjoyment of these advantages, and as an especial compensation for the said advantages, and for the favors they have acquired by the 4th, 5th, and 6th articles of this treaty, the United States guarantee, positively and efficaciously, to New Granada, by the present stipulation, the perfect neutrality of the before-mentioned isthmus, with the view that the free transit from the one to the other sea may not be interrupted or embarrassed in any future time while this treaty exists; and, in consequence, the United States also guarantee, in the same manner, the rights of sovereignty and property which New Granada has and possesses over the said territory. 2nd. The present treaty shall remain in full force and vigor for the term of twenty years from the day of the exchange of the ratifications; and from the same day the treaty that was concluded between the United States and Colombia, on the thirteenth of October, 1824, shall cease to have effect, notwithstanding what was disposed in the first point of its 31st article. 3rd. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if neither party notifies to the other its intention of reforming any of, or all, the articles of this treaty twelve months before the expiration of the twenty years stipulated above, the said treaty shall continue binding on both parties beyond the said twenty years, until twelve months from the time that one of the parties notifies its intention of proceeding to a reform. 4th. If any one or more of the citizens of either party shall infringe any of the articles of this treaty, such citizens shall be held personally responsible for the same, and the harmony and good correspondence between the nations shall not be interrupted thereby; each party engaging in no way to protect the offender, or sanction such violation. 5th. If unfortunately any of the articles contained in this treaty should be violated or infringed in any way whatever, it is expressly stipulated that neither of the two contracting parties shall ordain or authorize any acts of reprisal, nor shall declare war against the other on complaints of injuries or damages, until the said party considering itself offended shall have laid before the other a statement of such injuries or damages, verified by competent proofs, demanding justice and satisfaction, and the same shall have been denied, in violation of the laws and of international right. 6th. Any special or remarkable advantage that one or the other power may enjoy from the foregoing stipulation, are and ought to be always understood in virtue and as in compensation of the obligations they have just contracted, and which have been specified in the first number of this article. ARTICLE XXXVI. The present treaty of peace, amity, commerce and navigation shall be approved and ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate thereof; and by the President of the Republic of New Granada, with the consent and approbation of the Congress of the same; and the ratifications shall be exchanged in the city of Washington, within eighteen months from the date of the signature thereof, or sooner if possible. In faith whereof, we, the Plenipotentiaries of the United States of America and of the Republic of New Granada, have signed and sealed these presents in the city of Bogota, on the twelfth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. [SEAL] [SEAL] ADDITIONAL ARTICLE. B. A. BIDLACK. The Republics of the United States and of New Granada will hold and admit as national ships of one or the other, all those that shall be provided by the respective Government with a patent, issued according to its laws. The present additional article shall have the same force and validity as if it were inserted, word for word, in the treaty signed this day. It shall be ratified, and the ratification shall be exchanged at the same time. In witness whereof, the respective Plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and have affixed thereto their seals. Done in the city of Bogota, the twelfth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty-six. [SEAL] [SEAL] B. A. BIDLACK. TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1914. COMMITTEE ON INTEROCEANIC CANALS, The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m. pursuant to the call of The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, the committee will now proceed to hear the witnesses who desire to be heard. As all the members of the committee will find it necessary to attend the session of the Senate at 12 o'clock, there will be but an hour and 15 minutes set aside to-day for the hearing. That will necessitate some brevity on the part of the speakers, and under the circumstances the Chair will feel at liberty to indicate a time limit. STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN H. CLARKE, OF CLEVELAND, OHIO. The CHAIRMAN. Please state your full name, residence, and business or profession. Mr. CLARKE. My name is John H. Clarke; I am a lawyer and live at Cleveland, Ohio. The CHAIRMAN. If you have any views now regarding the pending legislation, Mr. Clarke, the committee will be glad to hear them. Mr. CLARKE. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, the occasion of my being here is an invitation from your committee, which I understand was suggested by Senator Burton, because he happened to know that I have been speaking upon this subject, the subject of the repeal of the canal tolls exemption law, for some two months at various meetings, entirely nonpartisan in character and extending throughout a large part of northern Ohio. He thought that I might bring to you something of the feeling which the people back home have upon this subject the people of the Middle West. Senator SIMMONS. And speaking as a candidate for the United States Senate? Senator CHILTON. Not now. Senator SIMMONS. No; I meant in Ohio, canvassing. Mr. CLARKE. NO, Mr. Senator; this speaking of mine came about in a most unexpected way, and before I became a candidate. Senator THOMAS. Misery loves company. Mr. CLARKE. It came about in this way. I was invited to address a meeting of the alumni of St. Ignatius College in Cleveland, and the subject they selected was "Our international relations and national honor." I discussed the acquisition of the Canal Zone, this matter of the exemption from canal tolls, and the Mexican policy of the administration, and, to my amazement, when I had finished the meeting adopted a resolution that it was the sense of those present that the tolls exemption law should be repealed. A committee was appointed to draft resolutions and to send them to the two Senators from Ohio and to the three Members of Congress from Cleveland. That speech led to half a dozen invitations to speak upon the same subject at various dinners and luncheons. They varied in character from the annual dinner of the Sons of the American Revolution to a very largely attended dinner of the traffic men and shippers of Cleveland, and to the City Club of Cleveland, which we esteem the most critical audience that assembles in that city. My purpose is, if you will permit me, to lay before you the arguments which seemed to appeal most to the people at home, because we feel out there, and I am glad to have this opinion confirmed by Speaker Clark, as I heard him confirm it upon last Saturday-that the worst place in the country to find out what the people of the country are thinking about is Washington. And the Senators and Representatives having been in continuous session now for almost a year, it was thought that suggestions of what the people are thinking about at home might be of service. Aside from the argument which is based upon the language of the first paragraph of the third article of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, I think the most persuasive argument with the audiences I addressed was this: That the Government of the United States in entering upon the administration of the canal will be undertaking a nongovernmental function, that of a common carrier; that its money will be invested in a business which is impressed with a public use, or, as the English decisions upon which our Supreme Court decision of 1876 with respect to this subject is based phrase it, it is invested in a business affected with a public use, and therefore is subject to public control. And the three respects in which the common carrier has been controlled or regulated by the public are these: It must serve all comers, it must serve them upon equal terms, and it must serve them upon reasonable terms. Now wholly irrespective of the language of the treaty, when the United States Government becomes such a common carrier, unless there are two standards of equity and of ethics, the one applicable to a private corporation acting as a common carrier and the other applicable to the Government acting as a common carrier--unless there is a difference of standards in these two situations, wholly irrespective of the question of the treaty, it seems to us that the tolls exemption law should be repealed, because the effect of it is to discriminate, to give one branch of our commerce advantages in the use of the canal which other branches of our commerce and citizens with their money invested in other businesses would not have. Senator THOMAS. If you carry that argument to its logical sequence does it not also require us to admit the vessels that are controlled in whole or in part by the railroad companies, and which are excluded under another provision of law? Mr. CLARKE. I do not think so, because that exclusion is general It applies to ships owned by railroad companies of all nations. Senator THOMAS. Yes; but the common carrier wanting to serve all on equal terms, being a public carrier, it seems to me can not do so if your argument is logical, when it excludes a certain class of craft. under all circumstances prohibits them from use of the canal. Mr. CLARKE. The point of distinction I would make would be that they must serve equally all whom it may undertake to serve at all. A common carrier may refuse to engage in a particular kind of service. Senator THOMAS. Then, would you regard this law as a proper one if the exemption from tolls were applied to coastwise English traffic, traffic for instance from Montreal, St. Johns, Vancouver, and Victoria? Mr. CLARKE. That is a large question. I should not want to undertake to answer it. I am addressing myself to this one thing which we have undertaken to do. Senator THOMAS. My questions I thought were in the line of that one thing and the effect of your argument upon it, when the conclusions are results probably flowing from your position, if it were applied to that. Senator SIMMONS. Apropos of Senator Thomas's question, was not the purpose of prohibiting the use of the canal to railroad ships not to discriminate against the railroads particularly, but to prevent the railroads from Senator WALSH. I want to suggest that the gentleman's time is exceedingly limited, and I hope we shall be able to hear his conclusion. Senator THOMAS. It was limited, but with the understanding that the limitation was not rigid. Senator SIMMONS. I did not suppose it was meant that we should not take any time to cross-examine him. I understood his statement was limited to 10 or 15 minutes, but I assumed we would have the right to cross-examine him to some extent, or rather to ask him to make clearer some statement that was not covered. The CHAIRMAN. I have only to observe, gentlemen, that there is a delegation from Louisiana that has traveled a great distance. They came here yesterday expecting to be heard, but were not given an opportunity. They were assured they would be given an opportunity this morning, and at the suggestion of one or two Senators I took the liberty of giving Mr. Clarke, who came in this morning for the first time, an opportunity to be heard before the Louisiana delegation would be heard. It is therefore a question now of judgment as to how much time will be occupied with Mr. Clarke. Senator BRANDEGEE. Inasmuch as that question has been asked I think it is only fair that both sides of it should be heard, and I simply want to say that I do not think the question asked by Senator Thomas states exactly the situation. My recollection is, and the bill will prove it, and I will put it into the record later I mean the bill will prove the fact that the Panama Canal act did not prohibit railroad-owned steamships, in terms, from going through the canal, but. did say that on and after July 1, 1914, no railroad company should have any interest, direct or indirect, in any steamship company with which it does or may compete for traffic through the Panama Canal, or elsewhere. So that the discrimination is not exactly as stated by the Senator from Colorado. Senator THOMAS. I think the Senator's suggestion is correct. The CHAIRMAN. Did you state your question, Senator Simmons? Senator SIMMONS. I was going to ask the witness this question: "Do you not think the purpose and effect of that legislation, so far from restricting the uses of the canal, enlarged the uses in that its effect would be not so much to discriminate against the railroads, but to prevent the railroads from restricting their traffic with the canal by acquiring a monopoly through combinations of that traffic and destroying others who might be entitled to use it from the opportunity of using it?" Mr. CLARKE. I am very sure that was the purpose, and I certainly should not attempt to improve upon the statement which the Senator has made. Senator BRISTOW. Mr. Clarke, do you think tolls ought to be charged on the Soo Canal? Mr. CLARKE. No; I do not. Senator BRISTOW. Why would you distinguish between those two? They are both governmental institutions operated by the Government. Mr. CLARKE. Because it has been the settled policy for many years not to charge for use of that canal. I might illustrate it in this way: That the construction of the Panama Canal is so different in the extent and character and location of it that it seems to me that it justifies a different treatment. Senator BRISTOW. Different in magnitude only, is it not? Mr. CLARKE. Not necessarily. There is a difference in use, and whether that be so or not we have decided-the Congress has decided to use it differently from what it has used the canals on the Lakes. Here we are proposing to permit only a small part of our commerce to be free; there all commerce can use it freely. Senator BRISTOW. But put it upon the basis that it is a common carrier, and being a common carrier had to serve all. It is no more a common carrier than the Soo Canal, is it? Mr. CLARKE. Yes. The Soo Canal was constructed under a treaty which provided for the equivalent use of the Canadian canals. Senator BRISTOW. Oh, no. That was the treaty after the canal was completed, in exchange of the use of the two canals. Mr. CLARKE. Certainly; but the latter canal was certainly constructed since that arrangement of 1871, was it not? Senator BRISTOW. I know; but there were tolls charged under the treaty, provided that the commerce of each nation should have the use of both canals. The CHAIRMAN. That was of 1882. Mr. CLARKE. 1882, was it? The treaty of 1871 contemplated the arrangement, however. Senator BRISTOW. We have spent a very large amount of money on the Mississippi River. Would you charge tolls for its use? Mr. CLARKE. Not at all. That is open to everybody, and it may be that it would be wise to have this unrestricted use up to a certain point, and not wise beyond that. A man might very well contribute $100 a year toward the salary of a minister of a church and not be able to build the church. So here, it seems to me, we have made free these various improved rivers and canals and so on, but here is something so stupendously great that we have resolved that we must have some return for it. Senator BRISTOW. We have spent just as much on the Mississippi River and its tributaries as on the Panama Canal? |