rejected by a vote of 27 yeas to 43 nays. On the same day, however, an amendment was offered reserving the right to the United States to protect said canal in any way it might deem proper. This amendment was rejected on roll call-yeas 27, nays 44-and this was the fate of several other amendments similarly reserving to the United States the right to fortify the canal. It is unnecessary to call attention to the fact that fortifications are now being constructed. With further reference to the Bard amendment we have been granted authority to quote from a letter recently written by Senator Bard, in the course of which he states:

When my amendment was under consideration it was generally conceded by Senators that even without that specific provision the rules of the treaty would not prevent our Government from treating the canal as part of our coast line and consequently could not be construed as a restriction of our interstate commerce, forbidding the discrimination in charges for tolls in favor of our coastwise trade, and this conviction contributed to the defeat of the amendment.

Senator SIMMONS. I want to ask you some questions in regard to that, if you will allow me. You are now quoting Mr. Bard to show that his amendment was defeated because it was our interpretation that we had the right, without any act of Congress, to exempt our coastwise trade. Is that what you meant?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Senator WALSH. I want to call your attention to some observations of Senator Morgan. I read here the other day from the report of Mr. Cushman Davis upon that first Hay-Pauncefote treaty, to which Mr. Bard's amendment was addressed, giving his views that it was not the purpose of the United States to acquire or insist upon any special or exclusive privileges in that canal, and that it would be unworthy of the United States to ask something for our shipping that we did not accord to the shipping of other nations. Senator Morgan-of course you know who he is?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes: very well.

Senator SIMMONS. You know that he was at that time a leading member of the Committee on Foreign Relations?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes; very well.

Senator SIMMONS. I want to read to you something that Senator Morgan said upon that subject.

Senator MORGAN. The treaty under consideration (referring to this treaty) is for the avowed purpose of removing any objection that may arise on account of the convention of April 19, 1850, commonly called the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, to the construction of such canal under the auspices of the United States, without imparing the general principle of neutralization established in article 8 of that convention.

That general principle, as it is modified or specially defined in this treaty, is all that is left of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, as now being in continuing force.

All that is left of this general treaty (says Senator Morgan in his report) is the general principle provided in article 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty (that general principle was retained). That is, that the vessels of all nations using the canal should be treated with exact equality, without discrimination in favor of the vessels of any nation.

Again Senator Morgan says:

Then this convention, in article 2, proceeds to define and formulate into an agreement, intended to be world-wide in its operation, the general principle of neutralization, established in article 8 of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty on the basis of the treaty of Constantinople of October, 1888, relating to the Suez Canal.

Nothing is given to the United States in article 2 of the convention now under consideration, nor is anything denied to us that is not given or denied to all other nations.

43756-14-56

Do you not consider that as a declaration by this great authority, Senator Morgan, that the United States was included with reference to its whole trade?

Mr. WHEELER. Not with reference to coastwise trade.

Senator SIMMONS. Nothing is given to it, to the United States, in article 2.

Senator BRISTOW. He was discussing, Senator, the first treaty, not the second treaty.

Senator SIMMONS. That is the first treaty, and that is the treaty to which the Bard amendment was offered that we are talking about. That was what Senator Morgan said about it. Now, as you are putting in Senator Bard's judgment, I want to ask you if you do not think Senator McCumber, who was then a new member of the Senate, and a very able member of the Senate, and a very diligent legislator if you do not think his opinion about what was the view of the Senate, and his statement as to what was said in the discussions in the Senate, is not entitled to as much consideration as Senator Bard's? Mr. WHEELER. Entirely so.

Senator SIMMONS. I want to read into the record what he says about it.

Senator MCCUMBER. I was present, I think, during all the debates on the treaty. I can not be certain that I was in the Senate Chamber every moment, but I do not now recall being absent. It was my first year in the Senate; this was a great question. I took a deep interest in it at that time, and all of the proceedings are impressed upon my mind more indelibly than anything that has happened since. And yet I never heard during all of that debate, either upon the original treaty when it first came before us or upon the modified treaty, which was afterwards agreed to by Great Britain and which came before us the second time, any contention on the floor of the Senate that the construction placed upon it by the authors of the treaty, the committee to which it was referred, were not borne out by its words. With my strong views against the remission of tolls to our vessels, either coastwise or others, I am certain that I never should have voted for that treaty had I supposed that it would have at any time been given a different construction by the Senate or the Congress of the United States. I should have insisted that it be made certain. We not only failed to make any such claim, but by a vote of 43 to 27 we declared against the policy of freeing any of our vessels from t etolls.

That is what he said about it. I now want to ask you if you do not think that Senator Bacon, who was then a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations and who afterwards became its chairman, and who has been not only considered one of the most diligent and observant men in the Senate, but one of the ablest, and profoundly interested in all questions relating to our foreign policy-do you not think his statements about this, as to the intention of the Senate and as to anything that was said in the debate, is entitled to as much credit as the statement of any other Senator?

Mr. WHEELER. Indeed I do, Senator. I can not emphasize that too strongly. I have the highest respect for Senator McCumber and his loyalty as a public servant, as I have for Senator Bacon. But let me say right here, if I may, I have fully as much respect for the opinions of these distinguished gentlemen you have mentioned here, but no more than I have for the opinions of Senator Bard himself, ex-Senator Foraker, ex-Senator Charles J. Towne, ex-Senator Butler of your State, and ex-Senator Turner of Washington, ex-Senator Kearns, ex-Senator Du Bois of Kentucky, Senator Perkins

Senator BRISTOW. Perkins, of Illinois?

Senator WALSH. Beveridge, of Indiana?

Mr. WHEELER. I have the utmost respect for the opinions of all of those gentlemen.

Senator SIMMONS. I am simply giving you now the statements of Senators Morgan, McCumber, and Bacon. I suppose that we might take a poll and might find there were differences of opinion about it? Mr. WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMMONS. But I am giving you the other side. This is what Senator McCumber says in introducing Senator Bacon's state

ment.

Mr. President, every man in the Senate to-day recognizes not only the clear legal mind of Senator Bacon but also his absolute candor in debate. He voted for the Bard amendment. He has left in no unmistakable terms what was understood by that vote. While I was discussing that question in the Senate in 1912 Senator Bacon asked permission to interrupt in support of my contention. The Record discloses the following:

"Mr. BACON. If the Senator will permit me, I think he could state it a little stronger than he did when he used the word 'renounced.'"

That was not strong enough, the word "renounced" our right to claim this exemption.

I have stated that we renounced our claim of a right to eliminate our coastwise trade from the operations of the treaty.

Senator Bacon used the words, "was not strong enough."

Then he says:

"We were then engaged in the making of a new treaty with Great Britain, and, of course, if Great Britain would have agreed to that arrangement it would have been a legitimate contract and covenant between the two. What the Senate of the United States then did was to decline even to make that demand upon Great Britain. We declined to say that we would contend for that. We not only by that action, in fact, recognized that there was an obligation of that kind under the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, but we declined to contend that that should be surrendered by Great Britain and that a new contract should be made, to which they would not have agreed.

"I wish to say, if the Senator will pardon me a moment, in this connection, as I am one of those recorded as voting in favor of the Bard amendment, that my idea at that time was not that any part of the merchant marine of the United States should have free transportation or free right of passage through the canal, but I was standing simply upon the ground that I thought the United States should have the right to control whatever tolls were imposed and discriminate in favor of our own citizens if we saw fit to do so."

There was an honest statement of what he meant.

"I do not wish myself to be considered as being committed by that vote to the principle of free passage for American ships in the canal.

"Mr. MCCUMBER. I think the vote was clearly a declaration of our intent and purpose not to demand free tolls for our own coastwise trade. That is all that I am citing it for.

"Mr. BACON. That would be true; and further than that, not to discriminate, that even if we charged tolls we would charge no greater tolls for the ships of foreign countries than for the ships of our own country."

That is what Senator Bacon said about it.

Senator BRISTOW. Mr. Chairman, if the Senator will permit me to inquire, are we going to continue over to-morrow? We have a lot of witnesses here, and if we are going to devote the entire time to reading from the speeches and from the Congressional Record, we shall. not get through to-day.

Senator SIMMONS. I have read this, and I ask the witness if he does not think their statements are entitled to as much credit as that is?

Senator BRISTOW. I have no objection at all to the Senator continuing his cross-examination. That is wholly within his judgment. But I do not want other witnesses' time to be curtailed, witnesses that have come for 3,000 miles to appear, if we are absolutely going to close to-day.

Senator SIMMONS. Senator, if I do not put it in the record by ask ing these questions, I shall undoubtedly put it in the record, and I have a right to put it in the record.

Senator BRISTOW. The point I raise is, suppose we go on and Mr. Wheeler is on the stand all day. Are we to understand that these other witnesses are not to appear then? I am perfectly willing to go on for three or four days longer.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair takes the liberty of suggesting that the quicker we close the examination now the sooner we shall be able

to conclude.

Senator BRISTOW. I want to give notice to the committee that I shall insist on these hearings continuing after to-day if there are witnesses here to be heard, if we are not through.

Senator SIMMONS. If the Senator does not wish me to cross-examine the witnesses

Senator BRISTOW. Not at all, only I wish it understood that these gentlemen here shall have an opportunity to be heard. I am perfectly willing that Senators should cross-examine.

Senator SIMMONS. The other evening, if the Senator pleases, we agreed that we would close these hearings to-night, but I certainly did not agree to surrender my right to cross-examine.

Senator BRISTOW. If the Senator proposes to take up all the time and not give these gentlemen here from across the continent an opportunity to be heard, of course if that agreement is carried out he can do it, but it will not be done without a very vigorous protest from me. Senator SIMMONS. These gentlemen had all of last week, and we have given them one day of this week.

Senator WALSH. Let Mr. Wheeler go on. We might as well improve the time we have.

Mr. WHEELER. I feel that I

Senator SIMMONS. I want to put in right there, and I may not ask Mr. Wheeler any questions about it-I want to put in right there, in addition to the statements of Mr. Bacon and Mr. McCumber, the statement of Senator Culberson on that question. I had his statement here a moment ago.

Senator WALSH. I suggest that you put Senator Culberson's entire statement in the record after these witnesses get through. That would be a very expeditious way of disposing of it.

Senator SIMMONS. Very well, I will do that.

Mr. WHEELER. If I may be indulged in a very slight diversion, which, in my opinion, is made perhaps necessary in order to place myself rightly before the committee, I will state that I arrived here on the 19th of April, after having made an appointment by telegraph with the chairman of this committee to appear before your honorable committee on Tuesday, the 21st of April, but owing to the activities involved in regard to our troubles in Mexico you will recall that this committee held no session upon Monday, the 20th, upon which date it appears that an appointment had been made with a delegation comprising a large number of gentlemen who were to appear

before

this committee. Therefore, rather than keep them over here, without being in any way churlish, I gave up my appointed date to the New Orleans people and others also, and the result is that from day to day I have been put back, and I want the Senators to understand why it was that I have been here a week and have not appeared before the committee; that is all.

Answering your last question, Senator Simmons, I certainly believe that the recollections

Senator WALSH. If you will pardon me, I think you have answered it, that these other gentlemen are equally entitled to respect in your judgment.

Mr. WHEELER. May I just emphasize that for one moment. I had the honor to serve upon a commission with Senator Lodge for some three or four years. That was the United States Immigration Commission, and Senator Lodge, as you gentlemen all know, voted against the exemption two years ago, and I understand from his speech that he is to-day in a mind consistent with that of two years ago. Nevertheless, Senator Lodge has recollected here and I have conversed with him upon the subject-his recollection is as it appears in the record, which is available to all. I had the opportunity of talking the other day with Senator Towne, and he was very emphatic in regard to his recollection. I am not saying that the other gentlemen's recollection is not equally honest. I know they are equally honest, but it shows the fallibility of human memory. That is all I wished to emphasize.

Senator WALSH. It might simply be noted in passing, too, in confirmation of what you have just now said, that apparanetly those who are now favoring the repeal remember it one way and those who are opposing the repeal, apparently with entire unanimity, remember it the other way.

Senator SIMMONS. I do not know. We have not heard from all of both sides. We have only heard from some.

Senator WALSH. Those we have heard from.

Mr. WHEELER. Senator Lodge, as I understand it, still favors repeal, but nevertheless his recollection of the discussion in the executive session of the Senate was as it is set forth in the record. Senator WALSH. He is one exception from the rule?

Mr. WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMMONS. Senator Culberson, whose statement I shall later introduce-I do not know how he voted on that

Senator WALSH. No; but I am speaking about their attitude now. Those who are now going to vote for repeal remember the significance of the Bard amendment one way; those who are now favoring the retention of the act, remember the significance of the Bard amendment the other way, as a general rule.

Senator SIMMONS. Yes; and in that condition of things I think the Bard amendment should speak for itself.

Senator WALSH. Yes; I think so.

Senator SIMMONS. That is the only point I am making.

Mr. WHEELER. After reading Senator Bard's utterances my comment is this:

In other words, to declare in an instrument that which is obvious, adds no strength, but on the contrary has a tendency to weaken the instrument.