Now, Senator, the Hay-Pauncefote treaty contemplated the United States acquiring the ownership, contemplated the United States exercising the power of enforcing neutrality over this canal, and imposed upon the United States exclusively the right to control and maintain the canal, and with that understanding neither Great Britain nor any other nation was to be charged with that duty; nevertheless, as a Senator of the United States, you joined in putting into this treaty the provision that the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, which was superseded, was to be without impairing the general principle of neutralization established in article 8. I would like you to explain

that.

Mr. FORAKER. I will do it by reading from Mr. Choate, whom you have quoted so frequently and with so much approval. He stated in his letter of August 16, 1901:

I called his attention

That is, Lord Lansdowne's attention

to the fact that while the preamble of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty limits the object and subject of the treaty to the Nicaraguan route and the eighth article carefully avoids the use of the word "neutrality" but merely agrees to extend the "protection of the two governments to other routes, and that in granting such joint "protection" the understanding is that canals by other routes shall be open on equal terms to the subjects and citizens of the two nations and of every other nation which is willing to grant the same "protection"-all of which was extremely vague and uncertain, and omitted the "guaranty of neutrality" that wanting to get rid of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty altogether we shouldn't want to make any part of it by a new covenant stronger than it was before. Whereas his new article 3A makes the eighth article a great deal stronger than it was before, and saying nothing about "protection" which is, of course, inapplicable to a canal wholly American, fastens the rules of neutrality of article 3, which he calls "stringent rules," upon all future routes. He said he thought article 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty clearly inferred neutrality. But I said it was only an inference the word used was "protection."

That is to say, nations "protecting" should share equally, but if we would "protect" it alone we have the entire right.

Senator OWEN. Then why put this preservation of the principle of naturalization established in article 8 in this?

Mr. FORAKER. If I had drawn the treaty I perhaps would not have put it in, but Mr. Hay put it in, and it became our duty to interpret it. I do not regard it as doing any harm. We were willing to make the canal neutral. We never expected to do anything else. I, of course, would make it a neutral canal. But what does neutrality mean? I say it does not mean equality of tolls of our ships with the ships of other people. It means they shall not carry on war in connection with the canal in that vicinity. That is what it means, and I have taken pains to specify what was meant by "neutralization" of the canal. We do not mean by "neutralization" of the canal that one of the rules was equality of tolls. That is not a rule at all. I say again, that simply declares on what kind of conditions other nations may acquire a right to use the canal, which is to be ours absolutely; that is, sole ownership and absolute control. If they will observe the rules we prescribe they can use it, and then they set out what the rules are, and they have five rules following, which relate to conditions of war; it shall be a neutral canal, just as our ports are neutral. We would not share with anybody else the control of Fort Wadsworth, which I believe is the name of the fort that commands New York Harbor. You would not think because we had a stipula

As

tion with somebody that the harbor of New York should be neutral water that the other nations would have a right to say how many guns we should keep in Fort Wadsworth.

Senator OWEN. It is a fact, is it not, that the Senate by a vote of 60 to 18 refused to strike out this principle of neutralization?

Mr. FORAKER. I do not remember; perhaps they did. I thought it was all right. I wanted it to be a neutral canal-we all wanted it to be a neutral canal-but I had in mind the ordinary meaning of neutrality, and neutralization, and neutral. A neutral is a party who has no interest in a controversy that is being waged by belligerents in war, or in a situation of peace, if so extended in its meaning, has no interest in the rivalry between others.

Senator OWEN. Mr. Choate really extended it to peace, to mean neutrality in commercial charges, did he not?

Mr. FORAKER. I did not so understand. I do not understand that Mr. Choate had a right to do any such thing. I am reading his language here to-day to support my contention.

Senator OWEN. May I call your attention to his letter of the 20th of August, 1901, in which he says, reading from page 267 of the record, third from the last paragraph:

Assuming that some such article must be retained, how would this do? In view of the permanent character of this treaty, whereby the general principle established by article 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty is reaffirmed, the United States hereby declares (and agrees) that it will impose no other charges or conditions of traffic upon any other canal that may be built across the Isthmus (or between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans) than such as are just and equitable, and that such canals shall be open to the subjects and citizens of the United States and of all other nations on equal terms.

He could not have used plainer language, it seems to me. Mr. FORAKER. And then he goes on to say that he [Mr. Hay] need not have any concern about that, because in all human probability there would never be a second canal across the Isthmus. Men say lots of things in an unguarded moment. I am talking about what he says in the body of this discussion and not what he says upon hypothetical cases.

Senator OWEN. This unguarded moment to which you refer seems to have been addressed to the Secretary of State of the United States by our ambassador to Great Britain.

Mr. FORAKER. That may be true, and it may be all right, but I am calling attention to other things that he says

Senator OWEN. I hope you will not say "may be," when you consider the text of the letter.

Mr. FORAKER. I say your interpretation may be all right of the particular clause you have read, but I take the letter as a whole. On that same page, at the top of it, he says:

He should emphatically favor omitting them, and thought his Government would assent to the omission; and he seemed to agree that making it read "all nations observing these rules," etc., would reach their object, which is that Great Britain and all other nations should be served alike and be on an equal footing as to obligation to observe the neutrality of the canal.

That is what Mr. Choate says on the same page. Now, if there is any inconsistency between what the Senator from Oklahoma read and what I have just read, he can reconcile it. He has more time than I have.

Senator OWEN. He discussed two different things. Of course, if the Senator can not answer the question I am willing to let it go into the record without further observation.

Mr. FORAKER. I submit them for what they are worth. I understand that to mean that he was talking about equality for Great Britain with other nations, and that is what Great Britain has considered in another place here

Senator SIMMONS. May I ask you one question on that point?
Mr. FORAKER. Certainly.

Senator SIMMONS. The principle of neutralization provided in article 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty provides for joint protection and then it proceeds:

It is always understood by the United States and Great Britain that the parties constructing or owning the same shall impose no other charges or conditions of traffic thereupon than the aforesaid Governments shall approve of as just and equitable; and that the same canals or railways, being open to the citizens and subjects of the United States and Great Britain on equal terms, etc.

Now, the letter which you read from Mr. White seriously objects to that character of neutralization being written into the Hay-Pauncefote treaty because of the fact that Great Britain was not hereafter to protect jointly the canal with the United States. The Senate, when this treaty came up, also sought to modify that, but failed. Now, those things were done anterior to the making of the treaty. Those were Mr. Choate's views, and that is what he wanted done. Those were the probable views of some Senators, and that is what they wanted done, but the treaty did not do that and the Senate did "not do that. What the treaty seems to have done and I will ask you if that is not correct-is that the treaty provides that notwithstanding Great Britain is relieved from her duty of protection, and notwithstanding the general principle of neutralization outside of the duty of protection, the general principle of neutralization as expressed in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty shall not be impaired; that is to say, shall remain unimpaired; that, so far as the United States is concerned, notwithstanding she has relieved Great Britain from the duty and obligation of protection, yet she will not impair in any way the principle of neutralization prescribed there with this qualification as to protection; with this provision that she shall be the sole protector, but the balance of the principle of neutralization therein prescribed shall not be impaired.

Now, would not that confine it to the balance of the language of that treaty, which is:

It is always understood by the United States and Great Britain that the parties constructing or owning the same shall impose no other charges or conditions of traffic thereupon than the aforesaid Governments shall approve of as just and equitable, and that the same canals or railways, being open to the citizens and subjects of the United States and Great Britain on equal terms, shall also be open on like terms to the citizens and subjects of every other State which is willing to grant thereto such protection as the United States and Great Britain engage to afford.

In other words-I probably have not made myself clear Mr. Choate insisted that, having removed or relieved Great Britain from her right of protection, and while the Senate probably insisted, or certain Members of the Senate insisted, that, having relieved Great Britain from the duty of protection, that this provision with reference to the neutralization-the terms of neutralization-should fall

with that. But, as a matter of fact, the treaty which was ratified subsequently to Mr. Choate's contention in that respect-subsequently to certain Senators' contention in that respect-the treaty did provide that the terms of neutralization should remain unimpaired.

Mr. FORAKER. The general principle, not the terms.
Senator SIMMONS. I mean the general principle.

Mr. FORAKER. The general principle was that they, joining in the protection of the country, should secure this equality of treatment, but Mr. Choate called attention to the fact, and that is why I read that extract from his letter to Mr. Hay, that the United States has now become the sole protector, and therefore, of course, that part of it falls to the ground. And he calls attention, further, to the fact that it is protection that is guaranteed, and not neutrality, and that the canal shall be open to those who help us to protect it.

Senator SIMMONS. Now that leads me up to the final question that I want to ask you. When this Hay-Pauncefote treaty says that the general principle of neutralization provided in Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty shall not be impaired by this convention, what does it refer to ?

Mr. FORAKER. It refers to the four rules we adopted, having relation to the condition of war, which are exactly what are referred to and what we agreed upon as the basis of neutrality.

Senator SIMMONS. Are any of those four rules mentioned at all in the eighth article?

Mr. FORAKER. It was not necessary. It is the general principle, and we agreed upon four or five certain rules

Senator SIMMONS. Does not the eighth article deal

Mr. FORAKER. We agreed upon them as the basis of the neutralization, and they are rules that are utterly inapplicable to us as the owner of the canal. We are violating those rules now, if they apply to us, in putting fortifications on the canal, in sending munitions of war there to be employed against an enemy, if one should come.

Senator SIMMONS. I do not want to enter into an argument with you about it, Senator.

Mr. FORAKER. Well, I thought you were inviting one. I do not want to, either.

Senator SIMMONS. It seems to me that when we say the general principles contained in the particular article of neutralization shall not be impaired or confined, the principles referred to the character of neutralization specified in that particular article, and I find that to be a neutralization of commerce.

Mr. FORAKER. When I speak about neutralization I am talking about being neutral as to people who have a controversy to which we are not a party.

The CHAIRMAN. I have just a question of two to put to you. You have made it quite plain that the views of Senator Davis had reference only to the first proposed Hay-Pauncefote treaty which was subsequently rejected.

Mr. FORAKER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You have indicated certain features of the first proposed treaty which were abandoned.

Mr. FORAKER. When we came to adopt the second, which is the existing treaty.

The CHAIRMAN. You have named some of them, but I do not know that you have yet called the attention of the conmmittee to a very important difference between the two treaties. In Article II of the first treaty it is proposed:

The high contracting parties (Great Britain and the United States) desiring to preserve and maintain the "general principle" of neutralization established in article 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer convention, which convention is hereby superseded, adopt as the basis of such naturalization the following rules, etc.

Mr. FORAKER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. It therefore appears that under the provision of that first treaty, if it were ratified as proposed, Great Britain as well as the United States would adopt those rules and that both nations would therefore be charged with the joint responsibility of maintaining the neutrality of the canal, and having that in mind, you perhaps will perceive some reason for the reference in the preamble to the general principle of neutralization supposed to be embraced in article 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, because in article 8, as you have very clearly stated, the two nations were to protect the builder of the canal.

Mr. FORAKER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And in the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty they would be called upon to do the same thing, because from its language it was not definitely determined that the United States would build the canal, or, rather, the provision of article 1 of that treaty being "It is agreed that the canal may be constructed under the auspices of the Government of the United States, either directly at its own cost or by gift or loan of money to individuals or corporations or through subscription to or purchase of stock or shares," it clearly contemplated the possibility that private enterprise would construct the canal, and under the language of the first proposed treaty, in that event both Governments-Great Britain as well as the United Stateswould be charged with the same duty enumerated in article 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, to protect the canal?

Now that feature of it, as to general protection and general responsibility for its neutralization, was entirely eliminated in the second and existing treaty, and therefore I assume it is your view that the reference in the preamble to neutralization has little or no application to the new situation produced.

Mr. FORAKER. You are entirely correct about that, and yet the truth is we did adopt what we understood would be the basis of neutralization, not having reference to equality of treatment.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Turner was one of your colleagues in the Senate, was he not?

Mr. FORAKER. Yes, sir; he was: and a very able man.

The CHAIRMAN. He was one of those who voted for the Bard amendment to the first treaty. In that connection I desire to read a telegram received from ex-Senator Turner under date of April 22, 1914, from Spokane, Wash. In order to have the record intelligible, I will read my question addressed to him first:

Senator GEORGE Turner,

Spokane, Wash.:

APRIL 22, 1914.

Mr. Skinner, of Seattle, informs me that you stated to him about 10 days ago, when you met him with Mr. Constantine, that it was thoroughly understood by the Senators