WEDNESDAY, APRIL 21, 1914. COMMITTEE ON INTEROCEANIC CANALS, Washington, D. C. The committee met at 2 o'clock p. m. pursuant to the call of the chairman. Present: Senators O'Gorman (chairman), Walsh, Thomas, Owen, Simmons, Brandegee, Borah, Bristow, Perkins, and Page. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Foraker, will you kindly state your views regarding the pending legislation, particularly the attitude of the Senate at the time the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was under consideration? STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH B. FORAKER, CINCINNATI, OHIO. Mr. FORAKER. Mr. Chairman, your telegram to me asked me to come and testify with special reference to any conferences I might have had with Mr. Hay or others touching the negotiation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. On account of that request I went through my letter files and found two letters that reminded me of two different conferences I had with Mr. Hay in regard to, first, the first IayPauncefote treaty, as it is called, and the second conference with reference to the second Hay-Pauncefote treaty. Senator WALSH. Were you at that time, Senator, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate? Mr. FORAKER. I was at that time a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Senator WALSH. Who was the chairman ? Mr. FORAKER. Senator Cushman K. Davis had been chairman, but he had died just before the first of these notes was sent to me that I am about to present to the committee. Mr recollection is that he died in 1900, shortly before the assembling of Congress for the December session. This note that I have is dated Washington, December 1, 1900, and reads: DEAR SENATOR FORAKER: Unless you send me word to the contrary, I am coming to see you to-morrow about 3 o'clock. Yours, faithfully, (Signed) JOHN HAY. The CHAIRMAN. What was the date of that? Mr. FORAKER. December 1, 1900. Mr. Hay frequently called at my house on Sundays. He had the habit of taking a walk up Sixteenth Street, on which street I resided, and it was to know what day of the week it was that I caused the calendar to be consulted by one of the clerks in my law office at home, and as a result of that it is noted on the paper that December 2, the day following this note, the day when he was to call, was Sunday. The Congress, I suppose, convened the following day, Monday. That brought to my mind a conference with Mr. Hay concerning the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty that had entirely gone out of my mind. He had nothing special to present at that time, but in view of the death of Senator Davis he had some anxiety about the action of the committee on the first HayPauncefote treaty, or, rather, the action of the Senate. The treaty was sent to the Senate, as I recall, on the 5th of February, 1900. It was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations and was reported back to the Senate on 9th of March. I did not remember this but I learned it by consulting the record. Senator PAGE. Senator, were you the ranking member of the committee-next to the chairman ? Mr. FORAKER. No, sir; not at that time. I was never the ranking member next to the chairman. At that time I think there were two or three others ahead of me. Senator Frye and Senator Lodge were both ahead of me in rank on the committee. After the treaty was reported to the Senate there was no sufficient opportunity, I will say, to properly discuss it. There was a good deal of diversity of opinion about the treaty. There were a number of us-I was one of them-who were not satisfied with the first HayPauncefote treaty. It seemed to me that it was framed on different lines from those on which it should have been framed, and the result was that at any rate the treaty was not considered in the Senate until after the summer vacation was over and we returned. At that time Senator Davis, who had reported the treaty with an amendment, had died, and Mr. Hay had some solicitude about the matter being properly pushed before the Senate. He was very anxious to have the treaty brought up and considered at as early a date as the Senate could conveniently give proper consideration to it, and he simply wanted to know, in a general way, what I thought the chances were of an early consideration, and we indulged in some talk as to the character of the treaty: As I now recall the conversation, he was already aware that I did not like the treaty in the form in which it had been sent to the Senate, nor did I like it as amended by Senator Davis. The committee, I know, are familiar with the fact that the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty had a positive prohibition against fortifying the canal. Senator Davis's amendment was a provision that it was thought negatived the effect of that whenever there might be occasion for fortification or for any acts of war on our behalf to protect the canal. I was not entirely satisfied with his amendment. I do not think any member of the committee signed that report that Senator Davis filed; but under the circumstances the treaty was reported back to the Senate and all were at liberty to offer such amendments as they might see fit to offer on the floor of the Senate. When we came to consider the treaty in the Senate I offered two amendments, as the record which I have before me shows. One was to abrogate the Clayton-Bulwer convention, and the word "abrogate" was changed to "supersede" on the suggestion of Senator Spooner. I asked him what he thought the difference was in legal effect between "abrogated" and "superseded," and he said he thought there was no difference except he thought that "superseded" was a softer word, and I accepted it as a substitute for "abrogated." I thought it meant the same thing. That amendment was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, which reported it back the following day in substantially the same language. I think, as I offered, it, it was that immediately following the word "convention" should be inserted the words "which is hereby abrogated," changed to "superseded" in the way I have stated. It was reported back with the amendment "which convention is hereby superseded." Mr. Lodge reported it back the following day. All this I speak of positively because I have just looked over the record. I have it before me. The other amendment that I offered was to strike out all of article 3 of the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty, which was the provision that invited all other nations to adhere to the treaty. By adherence, as we understood it then, it was meant that they could if they so desired become parties to the treaty itself. With those three amendments, all of which were adopted by the Senate, the treaty was ratified. The purpose I had in view in making the amendments I offered was to make the treaty conform to what I understood to be the primary purpose of the construction of the canal, namely, for national defense. It was not a money-making venture in any sense of the word. Nobody stopped to consider how much it would cost to build the canal, except in an incidental way; it was estimated, however, that it would cost $187,000,000, or about that sum, but if it had been $287,000,000 or $387,000,000, the action of the Senate would have been precisely the same in that respect. Our experience when the Oregon had to sail around the Horn to aid in the defense of the country against Cervera's fleet made us appreciate the necessity for having facilities for transferring our small fleet from one coast to the other. It doubled its efficiency, as the expression was in that day, and that was very important in view of the fact that, while Spain was not a very strong naval power, yet we might any day become involved in war with England or Germany, or some other country that did have a strong naval power, and then without this means of doubling the efficiency of our Navy, which was then small and likely to continue relatively small at least, we would be at great disadvantage. The primary purpose of it being therefore not commercial, for that was only incidental, but the national defense, I did not think we could afford to have any copartners in the transaction, and therefore was not willing that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty should be continued in a modified way or in any way whatever. I wanted to get rid of it absolutely so that we would have no copartnership in the control of our canal when the exigencies of war might come upon us. I moved to strike out the paragraph inviting all other nations to adhere, for the same general purpose, that if they were to adhere, they would become parties to the contract, and in case of war we would have to stop and consult not only England but everybody else who had seen fit to adhere, and it might be very inconvenient to do that if an enemy were moving on us rapidly. At any rate, that was the purpose, and I do not recall that I had any other conference with Mr. Hay until after he got a letter from Lord Lansdowne rejecting our treaty because of these amendments. He came to my house one Sunday afternoon bringing that letter. I think that must have been in the latter part of March or perhaps in April. I had the impression that it was in April, but I see by a reference to the letter, which I have taken the trouble to cut out of a copy of Senator McCumber's speech, in which it was printed in full, that it is dated February 22, 1901. I do not know how long before the time Mr. Hay came to see me with this letter it had reached him, but probably only very shortly before that time, because he had the letter with him, and said he had a very important communication from the British Government and wanted me to read it. We already knew that they had refused to accept the treaty with the amendments, as we had amended it. I read the letter over very carefully, and then we drifted into a general conversation about the subject; and inasmuch as I had offered the two amendments that I have mentioned, he wanted to know about our insisting on them, what the spirit of the Senate was, etc., and so on, just about what might arise in a general conversation of that kind. I told him I thought the spirit of the convention was exactly as the vote on those amendments indicated; that we were disposed to build the canal, but were building it primarily for the nation's defense, and therefore, inasmuch as we did not need any help about it, we did not want to put ourselves in the position of having to consult anybody else with regard to it. We wanted to build an American canal with American money, to be used in the first instance for American defense, and then, in so far as commercial purposes were concerned, such as we might be able to connect with it, but the other was the primary purpose. After talking the matter all over in that way he took out of his pocket a copy of the treaty as it had been amended by the Senate and asked me to indicate on that, in addition to what was already indicated there, what I had in mind by what I had said to him. I took his copy of the treaty and indicated that we wanted the amendment retained in any new draft that abrogated the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. That came first, and then in the next place we wanted the other provision stricken out-the one I spoke of a moment ago. My motion was to strike out the whole of article 3, as follows: The high contracting parties will, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, bring it to the notice of the other powers and invite them to adhere to it. I indicated on his copy of the treaty that he had with him that we would insist on the amendment about getting rid of the ClaytonBulwer treaty, and that we would insist on the amendment that I have just mentioned, and that so far as the amendment was concerned, offered by Senator Davis, which had been accepted, that I thought the Senate would be willing to have that go out if the provision against fortifications also went out, and that with those changes made, I thought the Senate would ratify the treaty. I remember also there was a clause in the treaty which I suggested might be transposed. That is the following: The United States, however, shall be at liberty to maintain such military police along the canal as may be necessary to protect it against lawlessness and disorder. I wanted that transposed from section 7 of article 2, where it followed the clause prohibiting fortifications, to section 2 of article 2 of the old treaty. The CHAIRMAN. Subdivision 2 of article 3 of the new treaty? Mr. FORAKER. Of the old treaty. And then insert it so that section 2, article 2, would read as follows-I do not know what that be comes now. The CHAIRMAN. It is subdivision 2 of article 3. Mr. FORAKER. It reads: The canal shall never be blockaded, nor shall any right of war be exercised, nor any act of hostility be committed within it. The United States, however, shall be at liberty to maintain such military police along the canal as may be necessary to protect it against lawlessness and disorder. I told him I thought with those amendments the Senate would ratify the treaty. He noted them all, or we did between us, and he went away with the treaty, and I knew nothing more about it until I received the following letter from Mr. Hay. This letter is dated Washington, August 23, 1901, and reads: DEAR SENATOR: It gives me great pleasure to inform you, in the strictest confidence, that I hope to conclude a new canal treaty with England, which will embody all the essential ideas of the Senate amendments, and especially all the suggestions which you kindly made to me last spring. I put them all in my draft, although I thought I might have some trouble in carrying them through. But the British Government have shown a very fair and reasonable spirit, and I sincerely hope we may now get a treaty by December which will be even more acceptable to the Senate than the one they ratified last winter. Please regard this is [as] entirely confidential. Yours, faithfully, The Hon. J. B. FORAKER. (Signed) JOHN HAY. I suppose there is no impropriety in making it public at this time. I never did make it public until now except to send a copy of it to President Taft when they had this subject before them for consideration during his administration. The CHAIRMAN. The ban of secrecy has been practically removed by the State Department from all the correspondence connected with the negotiation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. Mr. FORAKER. So I understand. I do not know that they have any correspondence from me, but I have that from Mr. Hay, and I have a lot of other letters, but they are not of any importance that I know of about this matter. In due time the new treaty came, and Senators are familiar with what it is. It was ratified by the Senate without amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Was the treaty reported from your committee by Senator Lodge? Mr. FORAKER. I believe it was. It is my recollection he reported the treaty out of our committee. The CHAIRMAN. You have heard the statement, or the statement attributed to him-he has made it several times-that when he reported that treaty on behalf of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate he did not believe, and, so far as he knew, no other Senator believed, that the provisions of the treaty imposed any restraint whatever on the United States with respect to its own vessels, either of commerce or of war? Mr. FORAKER. Yes, sir; I did not think so. The CHAIRMAN. Now, what is your judgment respecting that? Mr. FORAKER. My judgment is the same as his in that respect. It was our endeavor to cut loose entirely from all the entanglements which had been thrown around us by the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and by everything else that had been previously done, and with a free hand proceed to build a canal which would be primarily for national defense and secondarily for commerce; make out of it as acceptable an instrument of commerce as we could, but the primary purpose was 43756--14- 85 |