Mr. COCKRAN. No. We could do it, but I think it would be very

wrong.

Senator SIMMONS. When we agreed we would not do it and bound ourselves

Mr. COCKRAN. If we wanted

Senator SIMMONS. Was that a surrender of our sovereignty?

Mr. COCKRAN. No. If we chose to exercise our sovereignty in that way it would, of course, be an unfriendly act toward one power, and an unfriendly act may be resented. But such a course would be entirely within the scope of our sovereignty. If for any reason we should decide to shut the ships of France out altogether, as we might in case of war, no power could question us under the conception of our sovereignty there for which I am contending. But under your conception we could not shut out the ships of France, even if they were sent through that canal with supplies to a fleet blockading San Francisco.

Senator SIMMONS. I think you resolve the whole thing into a matter of force, and nothing else.

Mr. COCKRAN. You are asking about rights. You do not seem to appreciate the fact that when there is a change of sovereignty, that when land about which while it is alien we are willing to become conditioned becomes our own territory-it might be a State of the Union-we can not condition our sovereignty over it. Nevertheless, whether as a matter of good policy, as matter of comity of conscience we should exercise our sovereignty in one way or another, is a very different question. But, according to your contention, we have no sovereignty over the Canal Zone; we would not have the right to shut the ships of France out of that canal if they were conveying supplies to a hostile fleet blockading San Francisco. Now, to say that, in my judgment, reduces the whole matter to an absurdity.

Senator SIMMONS. We have the right under the treaty to close that whole canal to the commerce of the world, except our own? Mr. COCKRAN. Absolutely, if we choose.

Senator SIMMONS. And violate the treaty?

Mr. COCKRAN. The treaty, I insist, is abolished by the absorption of that territory in our own political system. But, as a matter of comity, I think it would be very bad policy and be absolutely against our interests. I think that the Panama Canal is as much one of our domestic waterways as the Ohio River, or the Tennessee River. Senator SIMMONS. If that is true with reference to the treaty with Great Britain, do you think that that is true with reference to the treaty which we made with Panama?

Mr. COCKRAN. There is no connection between the two. The treaty with Panama is a treaty by which we acquired the territory. We are bound by it in an especial sense morally.

Senator SIMMONS. Do you not think that one of the conditions by which we got sovereignty and entered-do you not think that we got unqualified sovereignty?

Mr. COCKRAN. There is divided

Senator SIMMONS. I think it is clear from the treaty that there never was any purpose to give us an unqualified sovereignty.

Mr. COCKRAN. My answer to that is that there can be no such thing as qualified sovereignty.

43756-14-41

Senator SIMMONS. Do you think that when we acquired this strip of land, with this right to appropriate it to a certain purpose, that the provision which Panama put into that treaty that the canal which we should build and which she was conceding or conveying this territory to us contingently to build, that we should build it and hold it open to the ships of all nations upon terms of entire equality Would you not think that was a condition to our title?

Mr. COCKRAN. That is the condition of our taking it.

Senator SIMMONS. That was a condition of our title, was it not? Mr. COCKRAN. Certainly, granted.

Senator SIMMONS. A condition of our sovereignty?

Mr. COCKRAN. That is a condition we are bound to enforce, bound morally to enforce, I quite agree with that.

Senator SIMMONS. When we imposed a condition upon our sovereignty in dealing with Panama, did we surrender our sovereignty over it?

Mr. COCKRAN. No; because the condition is one we are bound in conscience only to enforce. But suppose we violate it, as Senator Foraker put it ably, would that affect our sovereignty? Take the case Senator Foraker put. We are certainly authorized to establish rules for the government of the canal. Suppose we violate these rules. Is it contended that we could be ousted from our own canal for that reason?

Senator SIMMONS. We could if Panama had power, and if we submitted it to a court of arbitration and agreed to be bound by the finding of that court and they decided it against us, then we would be in honor bound to get out.

Mr. COCKRAN. I should be delighted if the outcome of this discussion should be to submit to some impartial tribunal the question whether there is any treaty subsisting between us and Great Britain. I should like to have some impartial tribunal decide finally and authoritatively whether absorption by us of that territory did not ipso facto determine any agreement concerning it with Great Britain. The length of time we have spent on this abstract question has been, to a very great extent, wasted, I fear, since I am perfectly willing to admit, for the purpose of this discussion, that the sovereign, in the exercise of sovereignty, ought, as a matter of comity, conscience, and policy, carry out every stipulation of that treaty. It does not make any practical difference whether we consider it an existing treaty or otherwise, so long as we are willing to be governed by the conditions specified in it.

My whole argument which has been interrupted here so frequentlyI don't mean to complain of the interruptions, they were entirely within the scope of courteous treatment-my whole argument proceeds on the assumption that we should do as matter of morals and conscience what you insist we must do as matter of necessity under this treaty. I insist we are sovereign over this territory, sovereign de jure and de facto. I don't think anybody disputes that. Being sovereign, I can not help thinking it is in the last degree imprudent to cast doubts upon our moral right to that sovereignty which everyone concedes to exist. I called attention at the beginning of this argument to the portentous character of two admissions which this country has been invited very recently to make; one by this measure, and the other by a treaty which the newspapers say has been nego

tiated with Colombia. If the Senate should be asked to ratify that treaty we will have admitted that we acquired the canal territory in a way to be regretted. And if the measure pending here be adopted we admit that we hold that property merely in trust for the benefit of all other nations. Now these admissions I think in the last degree injurious to our sovereignty, as well as to our honor, since they would give any combination of powers that might prove stronger than we abundant moral justification for ejecting us from the Isthmus.

I pointed out that if we hold that territory merely as trustees we could not even complain if we were compelled to evacuate it, for removing a trustee is not an injury of which he can personally complain, but having as I believe shown that we are sovereign de jure and de facto, that our sovereignty is absolute, that we owe no relation of trustee, subject, or contracting party to anyone for a sovereign can not be conditioned-I had reached the proposition that even if we concede the validity of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, that is to say conceding as matter of policy that the sovereign should exercise sovereignty in strict accordance with its provisions, even then this exemption of coastwise shipping from payment of tolls does not and could not violate agreement either in its letter or its spirit. It does not and can not create a discrimination against foreign ships in the use of the canal, for the reason that foreign shipping was entirely excluded from our coastwise trade before the treaty was ratified or even conceded. There can be no greater discrimination than total exclusion. This system of confining our coastwise traffic to American ships had been in operation for some 90 years. That fact was perfectly understood by the contracting parties. If, therefore, they had intended that this treaty prohibit any discrimination in favor of our own coastwise ships using that canal, they should have expressed that intention unmistakably in its terms. Nobody pretends that the treaty contains any such provision, and I can only repeat what I said before, an agreement to change a long-established economic system can not be read by inference into this treaty.

Now, in considering whether this tolls exemption violates the HayPauncefote treaty either in letter or in spirit, we must first of all realize that we are not now considering a proposal to establish this exemption. It is already established. The measure granting the exemption has been passed. It has been on the statute book for 20 months. And now the supporters of this measure ask us to make an admission which I think carries with it a discredit that this country never yet has done anything to deserve.

For 15 months it seems to have dawned on nobody that in granting this exemption to our coastwise shipping there was any violation of this treaty. The proposal to exempt them had been discussed, settled, and passed. It was a part of the political system of the country. Then when a foreign complication arises we are asked to admit it was a plain violation of this treaty. This, it seems to me, is asking us to confess that while we were quite ready to break our solemn obligation when we thought it could be done with impunity, the moment there seemed to be some danger arising from it we are eager to reverse our attitude. Such is the degrading position to which I think adoption of the pending measure will reduce this country. Think of it! For 15 months nobody questioned a certain measure on the ground of honor or good faith. The President of the United States

himself approved it in a speech at Washington, N. J.; and now we are asked to repeal this measure, not as an awakening of conscience at all; we are asked to repeal it as a recessary sacrifice to propitiate some other power.

Senator BRANDEGEE. You say unquestioned. Do you not know it was questioned at the very time it was passed by the Senate?

Mr. COCKRAN. I know that perfectly, and this I know, you and I are both good citizens.

Senator BRANDEGEE. I hope so.

Mr. COCKRAN. While the question of granting this exemption was open, pending before Congress, it was fair to discuss every aspect of it under heaven; but when this country had taken an attitude with respect to a matter affecting its relation with other nations finally through its properly accredited officers and a measure had become a fixed national policy, written in our statute books, then I believe we ought to stand by it.

Senator BRANDEGEE. That is different from the fact of having been unquestioned.

Mr. COCKRAN. I say that since it has been passed nobody has questioned that it has been the law of this country

Senator BRANDEGEE. Oh, no.

Mr. COCKRAN. That it was on the statute books. It was approved by the President, and now we are asked to reverse that position because something has happened elsewhere; not because the exemption itself is right or wrong. But whether good or bad, actually, we are urged to acknowledge it bad, a violation of truth and justice and morals. That is the admission we are asked to make now.

Senator BRANDEGEE. The President in his message says it wasMr. COCKRAN. A plain violation of the treaty.

Senator BRANDEGEE. And bad economics.

Mr. COCKRAN. That aspect of it I have already discussed. I agree with him fully as to bad economics. But after we have passed that measure and it has become a law of this country, to come in now and confess it was a plain violation of solemn obligations not an erroneous conclusion on an open or a disputed question, but a plain, that is to say, a deliberate violation of our plighted faith-is to confess that we are quite ready to do wrong while it appears to be safe, but equally ready to reverse our course when it threatens to prove unprofitable or uncomfortable.

Senator SIMMONS. The President of the United States, and probably the Secretary of State, admitted it was in plain violation. They have agreed with Great Britain.

Mr. COCKRAN. The President said the opposite when he was a candidate for office. Now it is impossible to think that he would say a thing while a candidate for the mere purpose of getting votes which he did not believe to be true. I do not believe he would do that. I think he would be even more particular about the truth and accuracy of his statements while he was submitting his candidacy to the people than afterwards when he had become President. The President, during the campaign, gave cogent reasons why he approved this tolls exemption, and now Congress is asked to reverse the action formerly taken. with his unanimous commendation. And why? As you said the President and the Secretary of State have undergone a change of mind. But surely, their later judgment is not entitled to any more

weight than their former judgment, which was entirely different upon the same subject. Mr. Wilson must unquestionably have been right on the question at one time or the other. There are only two sides to it, and he has occupied both. But he is no more weighty- at least it does not seem to me that he is a weightier authority on one side than he was on the other. If ever there was a question for arbitration it seems to me it is here. I should like the existence of that treaty submitted to arbitration, but meanwhile we have got this measure pending and its enactment is urged because a law already passed is a plain contravention of our solemn obligation. I say we can not afford to say that.

Senator SIMMONS. I want to say right there, for the President of the United States and for Mr. Bryan, that I am entirely satisfied that whatever views they may have expressed at any former time were views they thought were correct.

Mr. COCKRAN. So am I.

Senator SIMMONS. With the light before them at that time, and that the views they express now, with the weighty responsibilities upon them as the representatives of the Nation, dealing with its foreign policy, are the views they actually entertain in the light of the circumstances.

Mr. COCKRAN. I agree with that.

Senator SIMMONS. And the knowledge they have now.

Mr. COCKRAN. And the knowledge they have now. But they have held both views; therefore I say their views on one side are no weightier than on the other. I absolutely deny, and I hope that the Senator does not really mean to claim, that their views have been changed merely bcause they have now the weight of responsibility. A man's views are the product of his intellectual operations. I am perfectly certain Mr. Wilson was entirely candid each time. But I do say the question is so close that he himself was divided upon it. And that being so, I do not understand now how he could say it was a plainviolation of our obligations, since it can not have been so plain that. he himself did not go wrong on it. He must have been wrong one time or the other, just as he must have been right one time or the other.

Senator THORNTON. Had you finished that statement?

Mr. COCKRAN. Yes, sir.

Senator THORNTON. I am compelled to leave the room and wished to ask you a question before leaving. I had not intended to ask it until after you had finished your full statement.

I have been very much interested in the proposition that you have advanced this evening about our sovereignty to that canal and the strips on either side of it, which I have not heretofore heard advocated. If I understand your position, it is that we are at this time absolute sovereigns of that canal and the strips, and have been since the Panama treaty, by which we acquired it?

Mr. COCKRAN. Yes, sir.

Senator THORNTON. Then, do I understand that, in your opinion, if we were to close up that canal and leave there and publish to the world that we never intended to operate that canal any more, that we would still possess the absolute sovereignty to that 10-mile strip?