not think the American people have ever perpetrated an injustice in their history. I think they would be doing themselves an injustice now if they should acknowledge that they deliberately, consciously, did a wrong with their eyes open, and then abandon their position because difficulties have begun to rise around them.

Senator SIMMONS. At various times during the discussion of this question you have intimated-not said that Great Britain was demanding something of us that was wrong, that she had no right to demand. According to your view, if we accede to her demands, we would be surrendering something that we ought not to surrender, affecting our sovereignty. Is not this a fact, that all Great Britain has done in this matter is to say that she negotiated a treaty with us. that under that treaty we have agreed that we will not discriminate against her in any respect, but you are according to our conception of this treaty discriminating against us, exempting your coastwise trade from tolls, and we ask you to remedy that discrimination or submit the question to arbitration? Now, did we not do that same thing with reference to Great Britain when we had a controversy with her of somewhat similar character growing out of the use of the Welland Canal? There we had a treaty with Great Britain providing for equal treatment. Great Britain imposed a duty upon traffic going to Montreal through that canal of 20 cents a ton, and rebating 18 cents a ton, which was the same thing as charging 2 cents, and they charged a toll of 20 cents for that traffic that went through that canal to New York or some American port. Now, we protested to Great Britain just as Great Britain has protested to us, that that was a violation of our treaty rights, in that it discriminated against our traffic passing through that canal, which was a Canadian canal over which she had absolute and unqualified sovereignty, as you say we have over this, and we asked her to discontinue that discrimination. She refused to do it, and we resorted to retaliation. Finally she did remedy that discrimination. Now, do you think we did wrong when we asked her to remedy this discrimination according to our construction-not her construction-she construed the other way just as you are construing it the other way-we concluded that it was a discrimination, and she held that it was not a discrimination, and to enforce our rights we resorted to retaliation. Do you think we did anything wrong in insisting upon what we claimed was our treaty rights notwithstanding Canada did not agree with us, and do you think when Canada finally abated that discrimination, removed it, complied with our request and agreed with our request that our ships should go through on equal treatment with her ships, that Canada surrendered any of her sovereignty in that canal, or that she surrendered to the United States, or do you think that she simply came to a just interpretation of the treaty?

Mr. COCKRAN. There are two or three questions here, sir. I will answer them ad seriatim. First, do I think this Government did wrong? Never in its history. I do not say that by way of idle boast. I do not think you will find in the history of this Nation a single act, a completed act of the American people that could be deemed wrong in the forum of morals. For that reason I do not think we should make a confession of wrong here. You say that Canada persisted in its attitude until we retaliated. This merely shows that Canada learned by experience it was better for her to

abandon her attitude than to stand the retaliation. I do not think there was any question of wrong in this at all. It was a question of which course was the more prudent. Canada preferred to end retaliation, and the only way in which it could be ended was by yielding to our demand. If Great Britain feels herself injured by these tolls exemption and undertakes to retaliate we would then be forced to consider as matter of prudence and profit whether it would be better to concede her demand or reject it. Whichever way that question was decided it could involve no confession of dishonor. The questions that you put would be entirely relevant, it seems to me, if the question of exempting these coastwise ships were now pending. Anything that could be said by way of expostulation or argument against adoption of that measure, while it remained a mere proposal of legislation, would be entitled to very different consideration from that which should be accorded to it now when the exemption has been the fixed policy of this country for 15 months. I do not think there is any analogy between the action of Canada with respect to the Welland Canal and that which we are asked to take here.

Senator SIMMONS. In view of your statement a little while ago, suppose Great Britain, in case of our refusal to repeal this act and continue what she claims is this discrimination, should retaliate against us just as we did against Canada, and that retaliation became so burdensome to us that we finally concluded, like Canada, that it was best for us to yield and adopt her construction of the treaty instead of ours, as Canada did in that case adopt ours instead of hers, and we should repeal this act, do you think that we would be surrendering any right of sovereignty over this canal that we may now have, or do you think that we would be doing an outrage or wrong to the American people, any more than Canada surrendered her sovereignty over that canal, or did a wrong to her people?

Mr. COCKRAN. I thought I had answered that question. This grant of tolls exemption might have been made a cause of war. If Great Britain, considering it a violation of the treaty, had taken up arms to end it and after fighting her we had been defeated, she might prescribe as the condition of peace that we abolish this exemption. If we complied with the demand we would not by that compliance be admitting that we had perpetrated a wrong. We would simply be yielding to forced majeure. But I did say, and I repeat it now, that if under such condition the British Government, besides requiring us to abolish the tolls exemption, should impose on us in addition as a condition of peace that we acknowledge in establishing this exemption we have plainly and consciously violated a solemn treaty, that would be an act of cruelty which the whole world would condemn. Yielding to superior force never involves dishonor or suspicion of dishonor.

Now, you put to me the case that if instead of Great Britain fighting us on the field it should proceed to make a commercial war on us, and as a result of that commercial war we thought it more prudent to comply with her demands, of course we would do it. There would be no confession there that we had violated a treaty. There would be a confession, that the sovereign having by an exercise of his sovereignty become involved in war and having been defeated, he in the exercise of his sovereignty complied with the terms of his conqueror. Senator OWEN. And acknowledged his previous infamy?

43756-14-42

Mr. COCKRAN. There would be no acknowledgement of infamy there. We would be yielding to majeure force. What is urged here is that without any superior force whatever, merely because some difficulty has arisen in other quarters, we should repeal this tolls exemption on the ground openly confessed that in passing it we deliberately violated a treaty. That is the infamy, and the infamy is accentuated by the fact that we never acknowledged the wrong until we found ourselves confronted with these difficulties.

Senator SIMMONS. Is not this the situation here, that Great Britain in the ordinary process and methods of diplomatic negotiations brought this alleged discrimination to our attention, and asked us to either desist or submit the question to arbitration? Now, Great Britain is a party to this contract, if it is a contract, just as much as we are a party to it. We have not the right to absolutely construe it in our own interests, and neither has she the right to absolutely construe it. Now, when she raises this question in an entirely amicable, peaceable way, do you not think that if we are not willing to acknowl edge her construction that we ought at least to arbitrate it, and do you not know that we have refused so far to consider the question of arbitration?

Mr. COCKRAN. I do not know anything of the kind. I am not discussing that. If there had been an offer of arbitration, I would not be here.

Senator SIMMONS. You mean, they have not asked for arbitration-have not suggested arbitration?

Mr. COCKRAN. I know there was some discussion, and the fact that she suggests arbitration is a pretty strong intimation we should not rush in with an admission. If it is a subject for arbitration, it is not for admission of guilt by one of the parties. We can not ask for arbitration on what we are asked to confess a deliberate violation

of the treaty. That I do not think we can do with any regard for our

national honor.

Senator SIMMONS. Of course. If we should repeal it, then the cause of the quarrel would be over.

Mr. COCKRAN. That is to say, we would admit that with our eyes open we violated that treaty. That, I think, is absolutely inconsistent with the history, the honor, and dignity of this country. I do not think it is true. If it were true, as I said before, if there were no doubt that we did it, then there would be nothing to do but to acknowledge it in sackcloth and ashes, and make this reparation.

Senator SIMMONS. You think when two parties to a treaty disagree about it, and discuss it, that when one party yields to the construction of the other party that it does an act inconsistent with the dignity of that country?

Mr. COCKRAN. On that statement, no. But when one party has considered the matter deliberately and has embodied its conclusions on its statutes by a law which fixes this exemption, and then 15 months afterwards, because a difficulty arises beyond the frontier, it is told that it must make this confession of deliberate wrongdoing and disloyalty. I say to make that confession, which, to begin with, is not true, under these conditions would be an infamy

Senator SIMMONS. Do you not know, in the case I put to you with reference to discrimination in the Welland Canal

Mr. COCKRAN. You said that was the result of retaliation.

Senator SIMMONS. And I am talking about the order now. You said we had passed an act of Congress, and for 15 months it had been on the statute books, and because we had done that we could not afford to recede without dishonor.

Mr. COCKRAN. No; pardon me; I did not say that. I said we can not afford to admit that we committed a plain violation of the treaty. That is what I said.

Senator SIMMONS. Do you not know, as a matter of fact, that the order discriminating against the vessels of the United States in the Welland Canal was an order in council on the part of the Canadian Government, which was tantamount, so far as that question is concerned, to an act of Congress in this country, and that Great Britain had persisted in the enforcement of that order of council for a long period of time, several years, and that it eventually receded from that position and yielded to our interpretation?

Mr. COCKRAN. On your own statement, Senator, Canada abandoned the discrimination because the retaliation proved too expensive. If we felt compelled by any reason, by experience, as matter of prudence and policy to abolish this exemption, there would be no dishonor in it. We might be compelled to do it by armed force in the field. We might be compelled by commercial pressure. That would be very different from coming in and acknowledging without any pressure, force, or any other reason that we had committed a plain violation of a treaty. That is the feature of it to which I especially object. We are not acting here through any pretense of awakening conscience. We are acting in compliance with a demand that we do this thing to facilitate a policy of the administration somewhere else. That is what I consider an infamy. We can not purchase the good opinion of the world by either confessing a wrong to others or being apparently afraid to insist on our own unquestionable rights.

Senator SIMMONS. When you speak of a demand, are you referring to the President's message?

Mr. COCKRAN. Perhaps I should modify that. Perhaps the President does not demand anything of Congress-I will not put it that way that a presidential request, with a majority in each House supporting it, generally assumes the force of a command.

Senator SIMMONS. When you speak of a demand, are you talking about yielding to the wishes of the President?

Mr. COCKRAN. No; but I am talking of the demand which the President voiced. The President says it is necessary to pass this measure. If the President asks anything concerning our foreign relations we are here approaching a very serious situation. Whatever may be thought about the policies or acts that led to the difficulty which now faces the country, every human being subject to its jurisdiction should stand by the President in everything he is doing or contemplating with relation to another country. We are not here in the same position as England, where if the people dislike any policy, domestic or foreign, they can at once dismiss the government responsible for it and call into power a new ministry more in harmony with the prevailing sentiment. Under our Constitution this President is the only agent we can have until the 4th of March, 1917, to carry out our foreign policy. Every man in this country should support him in the thing he is doing. Therefore I should hesitate to

criticize the President. I do not want to be placed in the attitude of criticizing him.

But this I do say, that no difficulty which confronts us would justify us in yielding to the demand which I think the President voices. He tells us that passage of this measure is necessary in order that he may deal effectively with conditions which he did not disclose. I say there are no conditions conceivable which would justify us in writing down such a confession of misconduct on our part. We have not violated any treaty. We have obeyed this treaty and all others. We have interpreted as the sovereign must interpret every treaty for himself. That is the act of sovereignty. If the sovereign refers a question arising under a treaty to arbitration, that reference itself is an act of sovereignty. It is absolutely essential to the peace of the civilized world, in my judgment, that our attitude toward this canal should be defined and made clear. Our sovereignty must be fixed and acknowledged or else sovereignty should be fixed somewhere else. Because questions similar to this one we have been considering will continue to arise just so long as that canal is used, if doubts about our right to sovereignty are allowed to remain, especially when they are fomented and increased by our discussions and by action by our own highest officers.

Gentlemen, remember we are only at the infancy of this enterprise. In operation it will eventually multiply commerce. The effect of every commercial expansion is a growth in the size of cities. These great communities live from hand to mouth. There is not one of them with means of subsistence for six days within its walls. Every source of food supply lies at the very basis of their existence. Now when through opening of that canal commerce would have been greatly increased and multiplied no great nation would stand by and submit to anything that might interfere with its use as a means of supplying commodities essential to its support and the existence of its inhabitants. If we leave it open to doubt whether we have any sovereignty over it at all, if we admit that we have no special ownership, government and control over it the result must be conclusive, possibly conflict. How can we be answerable to the world even in the forum of conscience for administration of the canal if we have no power to administer it at all, if there be the doubt about this question which Senator Simmons has expressed so forcibly in his examination of Senator Foraker and myself. That fact ought to show the capital importance of having the entire matter settled. Are we sovereign over the Canal Zone? If we are sovereign, have we sovereign's right to administer the canal subject only to those restratins of conscience which every sover ign acknowledges? Have we paid out $400,000,000 to its construction and assumed the heavy burden of maintaining it with no more actual control over it than any other nation, unless it be to make regulations for the use of it as a swimming pool or a fishing pond? These are questions of great magnitude. That this country should have gone into this tremendous enterprise and then be declared by its own Senators and Representatives to be merely trustee for the benefit of all nations presents a very grave problem which must be solved in the interest of peace. I think the idea that is in Senator Simmon's mind, and germinating in the minds of some others, is that we may get an authori