Senator BRANDEGEE. I agree to that, but under the ClaytonBulwer treaty Mr. FORAKER. Which we abrogated. Senator BRANDEGEE (continuing). Which we supreseded by this treaty, Great Britain and the United States had an equal right in relation to the construction of this canal. The CHAIRMAN. Which canal? Senator BRANDEGEE. Any canal across the Isthmus. The CHAIRMAN. No; they only undertook, under the ClaytonBulwer treaty, to offer their protection to a private owner who might construct a canal. Mr. FORAKER. That is all. Senator BRANDEGEE. We went all through that yesterday. The CHAIRMAN. And then only upon condition that the rates charged by the private owner were just and equitable. Senator BRANDEGEE. We went all through that yesterday. It is all in yesterday's record. I have a short way of stating it, that anything done under the Clayton-Bulwer treaty would have resulted in the ships of Great Britain and the ships of the United States being treated on a basis of absolute equality as to tolls and charges through the canal. Mr. FORAKER. Well, that is true. Senator BRANDEGEE. That is a fact. Mr. FORAKER. Provided she did as much for the canal as we did. Senator BRANDEGEE. It was true under the terms of the ClaytonBulwer treaty, whatever canal resulted from that. Mr. FORAKER. Yes. Senator BRANDEGEE. Having that right to equality, then, under that treaty, and being the largest shipowner in the world, it seems to me that if we had said when we were asking her to supersede that treaty under those rights, which she possessed by a treaty, which would allow us to exempt from tolls all our ships, both foreign and domestic, and tax all her ships, if we had said that to her in plain terms by the negotiators of our treaty, she would have said: "We decline to sign any such treaty. It is an insult to us to ask us to do it." Mr. FORAKER. She probably would have said it, and it would not have been 15 minutes, if the Senate was in session, after she said it when a resolution denouncing the Clayton-Bulwer treaty would have been introduced, on the ground that it was obsolete, as the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Fifty-seventh Congress found, according to the reference made here yesterday, in 1891. It would have been introduced and would have been passed, as I remember the temper of the Senate. Senator BRANDEGEE. Very likely, and that is what might have been, but unfortunately was not done. And we have something here that was done. The question is, What did the two parties to it understand by it? And I ask, Do you think if Mr. Choate or Lord Pauncefote had said to Great Britain, "Now, before we sign this let us have a clear meeting of the minds, because we do not want any trouble about it afterwards; you are giving up your rights under the ClaytonBulwer treaty, and under this new treaty which takes its place are we to understand that we can exempt all the ships of America and tax all the ships of Great Britain?" Do you think Lord Salisbury would have allowed that treaty to have been signed or would have dared to recommend it to the British Parliament? Mr. FORAKER. I not only think he would, but I think he did. I think he understood that clearly. I think Lord Lansdowne, who succeeded Lord Salisbury, understood it clearly; because Mr. Choate said in the correspondence that I have quoted-I have put the paragraph in-that his conversations were with Lord Lansdowne, and he told him we should have the sole ownership of the canal, and that no other nation should have any contract right to it whatever; and it is provided that we should have all the rights that belong to ownership. What did that mean? Answer that. Senator BRANDEGEE. You are talking about another nation other than the contracting parties. Mr. FORAKER. What is that? Senator BRANDEGEE. I say that you are there saying that Lord Lansdowne said and we said that no other nation should have a contract right, but the two parties who were making the contract certainly had contract rights, did they not? Mr. FORAKER. What I am calling attention to is Mr. Choate's language in this letter to Mr. Hay, that he told Lord Lansdowne that no other nation should have any contract right, and that Lord Lansdowne was solicitous only that Great Britain should stand in no worse light and at no greater disadvantage than the other nations who might adhere, or might come in, to use the canal by right, agreeing to observe these rules. Senator BRANDEGEE. It seems to me these parties who were making a contract, making an agreement among themselves, and we objecting to the language that other nations agreeing to the rules might have the same rights, and that language being changed so that other nations observing the rules should have the same rights, is very significant that we are the two parties to the agreement and the contract and are bound by it, but the other nations have no contractual relation in it and only could use it upon the same terms so long as they observed the rules. Mr. FORAKER. Did Great Britain have a contractual right in it! Has she now? Senator BRANDEGEE. I think Great Britain has a contractual right, that she was one of the parties to the contract, and has a right to assert under the contract whatever the contract fairly means. Mr. FORAKER. Undoubtedly she has a right to assert whatever it means. We all have that right, fortunately. Great Britain was told by Mr. Choate, according to his letter to Mr. Hay, that neither Great Britain nor anybody else should have any contractual right in the canal. That is just what I read a moment ago. That is the significance of it. And if she has no contractual right-and why should she have a contractual right? Senator BRANDEGEE. It depends on what you mean by contractual right. She was one of the contracting parties. Mr. FORAKER. Very well. I can not make it any clearer than I have tried to. Senator BRANDEGEE. I think you have made your view very Mr. FORAKER. May I add just one other thing? clear. Remembering the temper of the Senate as I do, if it had been understood that Great Britain was to have a voice as to whether or not our ships might pass through on such conditions as we saw fit to allow them to pass through on, that treaty would not have gotten 10 votes in the Senate. I do not believe it would have gotten 10 votes. I am sure the Senator from Connecticut would not have voted for it, from what I remember of his attitude. Senator BRANDEGEE. The Senator just said a moment ago that he did not understand the temper of the Senate, but he did understand his own temper. Mr. FORAKER. That is all. I say that as I recollect it; I think I understand it. Senator SIMMONS. Senator, before we get altogether off the line of questions I was asking you awhile ago before interrupted by Senator Brandegee's questions, you had made some statement with reference to a conversation between you and Mr. White. Mr. FORAKER. Yes. Senator SIMMONS. In view of the Senator's reference to the conversation with Mr. White, I ask to read a letter addressed to me by Mr. White, on April 19, just before he sailed for Europe, about this conversation with you, he having seen in the newspapers some statement that you had made with respect to it. Mr. FORAKER. Yes. Senator SIMMONS. And he wrote this letter that his version of that might be before the committee, although he is absent and not able to appear. It reads: MY DEAR SENATOR SIMMONS: WASHINGTON, April 19, 1914. I thank you for sending me the documents containing the evidence so far given before the Interoceanic Canals Committee. The Washington Post of yesterday quotes former Senator Foraker as saying: "I have personal knowledge that both Mr. Hay and Mr. Henry White had full knowledge of what the Senate demanded and supposed we were getting," etc. As I am leaving to-morrow for Germany, and may not see you again for some time, I think it well to let you know that I agree with that statement. I not only am under the impression that I knew the reasons which caused the Senate to object to certain provisions of the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty, but I am in sympathy with that body's action. I had no reason, however, to suppose from anything said to me by any Senator or by anyone else that the use of the canal by our vessels engaged in the coasting trade without payment of tolls had any connection therewith. Mr. Foraker is one of the Senators referred to in my letter to Senator McCumber and in my statement to the committee, with whom I had conversations after the rejection of the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty. I well remember an interesting interview which I had with him in 1901 at his house in Washington, and during which we went into what I supposed to be all of the questions at issue between the two Governments; but as far as I can recollect, no allusion was made by either the Senator or by me to the exemption of our vessels from the payment of tolls in passing through the Panama Canal. I may add that I shall always remember with pleasure the assistance rendered by Senator Foraker in bringing about a situation whereby the Hay-Pauncefote treaty now in force became possible, and I have no reason to suppose that his recollection differs from mine on the particular point to which I have referred. Yours, very sincerely, HENRY WHITE. Mr. FORAKER. I take no execption to that letter at all. I did not talk with him about exempting any of our vessels. At that time we did not have that particula: matter under consideration. I do not know that it was under consideration at any time except when Mr. Bard offered his amendment. What we did have under consideration when Mr. White called on me was the question of what kind of terms would the Senate-no, what must be the nature of the treaty to get the ratification of the Senate, and in that conversation I insisted to him that we must have absolute and unqualified ownership and control, free from Great Britain and everybody else. Mr. Henry White might have added that he was so pleased with what Mr. Hay said to him and was so anxious to have Lord Salisbury and Mr. Balfour understand it, that he wanted me to go with him to London and see them, saying that at his house he could bring them there--we could have a conference about this matter, and I could explain to them what the public sentiment was in this country, and the necessity of insisting upon a canal that we absolutely owned and controlled. I was not thinking of coastwise vessels being exempted at that time. I was thinking about getting an unqualified right to do with the canal as we saw fit, especially in time of war. If we should be attacked we did not want to have to consult Great Britain or anybody else. I did not refer to this part of your conversation, because I did not want to speak of private conversations beyond what might be necessary. But I know what we talked about were these amendments that I had offered and the necessity for having Great Britain meet us and concede to us this individual ownership, without any copartnership with Great Britain, and they (Mr. White and Mr. Hay) recognized that we could not make any treaty at all unless we did do it. And both of them understood-I do not remember that I told them, but that was the basis of our conversation, that if we could not get an agreement we would denounce the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, and certainly from then on would go it free-handed and alone; that we did not need any copartnership and were not going to have it. That is all, as I understand it. Senator SIMMONS. I think the committee understands that the purpose Mr. White had in writing that letter and the purpose I had in reading it was to preclude any conclusion that Mr. White entertained the same views about this matter of exception of coast wise tolls that Senator Foraker does. Mr. FORAKER. Senator, if he was willing to concede that we were right and could do that, and wanted everybody else to aid in bringing that about that we were right in insisting upon absolute and unqualified control and ownership, and we were to have all the rights of ownership, did not that involve doing with our own ships as we saw fit? of Senator SIMMONS. I think, Senator-and I am going to try to bring some of that out in a few minutes-I think the history of this transaction and the expressions of American statesmen charged with duties connected with it, will show that it never was the purpose this Government, and it never was the intent of any other government, that we should be permitted or any other nation should be permitted to build a canal across the Isthmus connecting the two oceans, which was not to be a free international waterway. Mr. FORAKER. I can understand how a man might have that opinion. There was a great deal of expression of that kind prior to the negotiation of the second Hay-Pauncefote treaty, but none that I know of that prevailed after that. That was the very point at issue. Senator SIMMONS. Senator, you said on yesterday that you thought the Committee on Foreign Relations entertained the same views with respect to the absolute and unqualified right of the United States, if she built this canal, to use it as she saw fit with respect to her domestic trade, the same as you entertained with respect to it. Mr. Chairman, I desire to have read to the Senator, and read into the record, the extracts from Senator Cushman K. Davis's report, who I believe was the chairman of the committee at the time you considered that. Mr. FORAKER. At the time we were considering the first HayPauncefote treaty. Senator SIMMONS. That is what I am talking about, the first HayPauncefote treaty. Mr. FORAKER. But he was dead before we had the second HayPauncefote treaty. Senator SIMMONS. Yes, he was dead when we had the second Hay-Pauncefote treaty. He was dead before we voted on the first, But he was alive when you were making it. Mr. FORAKER. But he wrote his report long before it had become an acute question. Senator SIMMONS. Before it had become an acute question, but he wrote his report after the Committee on Foreign Relations had had this first Hay-Pauncefote treaty under consideration. Mr. FORAKER. Yes. Senator SIMMONS. And had thoroughly thrashed it out. Mr. FORAKER. I remember Mr. Davis came to my house with this report, and that I would not agree to it. I said, "Go ahead and report it, and on the floor of the Senate I will offer some amendments." I pointed out to him the necessity of our building it for national defense, and if we were going to build it for that everybody would have to be left out. Senator SIMMONS. I understood you yesterday as saying that you thought members of the committee that you talked this matter over in committee very freely, and that you thought they entertained the same view as yourself as to the absolute control the United States would have over it, and the right it would have to do with it as it pleased with reference to its own domestic traffic. Mr. FORAKER. I said yesterday that Senator Davis had alone signed his report. He did not ask me to sign it. It may be that he knew- Senator SIMMONS. You did not file any minority report? Mr. FORAKER. No; we did not. But it was the understanding that on the floor of the Senate any member would be free to offer any amendment he wanted to offer. Senator SIMMONS. There was not any minority report filed? Mr. FORAKER. Except by Senator Morgan, of Alabama, as I understand it and recollect it. Senator SIMMONS. Now, Mr. Chairman, I think we all understand the effect of a report made by a chairman of a committee, and in view of Senator Foraker's statement with reference to the understanding of the committee I desire to have this part of the report that relates to the right of the United States to use this waterway with |