CULBERSON OPPOSES FREE-TOLLS SUBSIDY-SENATOR FROM TEXAS SUPPORTS PRESIDENT WILSON'S REPEAL POLICY-IN VIOLATION OF TREATY-ALTHOUGH OPPOSING HAY-PAUNCEFOTE PACT, BELIEF IS EXPRESSED THAT IT SHOULD BE ADHERED To. MINERAL WELLS, TEX., April 17. In answer to repeated inquiries as to his views on the Panama Canal toll question, now pending in Congress, Senator Charles A. Culberson to-day gave out the following statement: "In 1850 a treaty was entered into between the United States and Great Britain on the subject of an isthmian canal, which is commonly known as the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. It related in express terms to a canal across Nicaragua, and to my mind it is doubtful if it referred to a canal at Panama constructed by the United States at their own expense. The only reference to Panama in this treaty is in article 8, where the two Governments agreed to extend their protection, by treaty stipulations, to any other practicable communications, whether by canal or railway, across the isthmus which connects North and South America, and especially to the interoceanic communications, should the same prove to be practicable, whether by canal or railway, which are now proposed to be established by the way of Tehauntepec or Panama." This is a mere agreement to guarantee 'protection' by treaty stipulations to others who might construct a canal by way of Tehauntepec or Panama, and does not contemplate that either the United States or Great Britain would do so. On the contrary, it is stipulated in article 1 of the treaty that neither party should ‘ever obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over the said ship canal.' "Among other stipulations in this treaty of 1850 were: (1) That the canal should be constructed 'for the benefit of mankind, on equal terms to all,' and (2) that neither party should occupy, fortify, colonize, or assume or exercise any dominion over Nic、 aragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or any part of Central America. "I was elected to the Senate the first time in 1899. "OPPOSED HAY-FAUNCEFOTE TREATY. "In 1900 a treaty was proposed between the United States and Great Britain on the subject of an isthmian canal, which, in effect, superseded the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and I was one of the 18 who voted against it in the Senate. This is known as the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty. In 1901 the second Hay-Pauncefote treaty, the one now in force, was proposed, and I was one of the 6 who voted against it in the Senate, the others being Senators Bacon, Blackburn, Mallory, Teller, and Tillman. "My vote against these treaties was based upon the fact that Great Britain had violated the Clayton-Bulwer treaty of 1850, as shown by the diplomatic notes of Secretaries of State Blaine and others, in 1881 and subsequently; that this treaty was therefore obsolete and of no effect; and that Great Britain, under the circumstances, should not and need not be consulted by the United States in the construction of the canal, particularly when it was proposed, if deemed expedient, that it should be built by the United States directly and at their own cost. "Nevertheless, this second Hay-Paunceforte treaty was adopted by the Senate by the large vote of 72 to 6, and as it is now the law of the land the chief question which arises in this controversy is, Whether the act of the Congress which provides that American vessels engaged in the coastwise trade of the United States shall pass through the canal free of tolls is in conflict with the treaty? "This brings me to the terms of the treaty itself. Unquestionably, unlike the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, this treaty applies to Panama, for it declares that it has application to whatever route may be considered expedient.' And it applied to the construction of the canal when done directly by the United States at their own expense, because it provides 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 subscriptions to or purchase of stock or shares.' By the first paragraph of article 3 it is provided that the "canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these rules on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such nation, or its citizens or subjects, in respect of the charges of traffic or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable.' IN CONFLICT WITH TREATY, "In my opinion, after a thorough reexamination of the subject, the act of the Congress referred to is in conflict with this provision of the treaty. Argument is unnecessary to show that Great Britain and the United States, parties to the treaty, are included in the term 'all nations,' nor that ships engaged in the coastwise trade are 'vessels of commerce.' Both the United States and Great Britain have coastwise trade on this continent and it is a plain and manifest discrimination to allow our vessels engaged in that trade to pass through the canal free of tolls, for the coastwise trade of the two countries is the same kind and class of trade. Moreover, the exemption from tolls of a class of vessels will tend to lay an unnecessary and heavier burden on ships which are taxed, which will affect the justness and equitable character of the tolls. "The economic and secondary question which is involved is equally clear to me. The American vessels of commerce engaged in the coastwise trade of the United States now enjoy a monopoly, inasmuch as vessels of other countries are prohibited from engaging in that trade and an exemption of the payment of canal tolls would add to that monopoly. This is not only true, but such an exemption would not appreciably benefit the general public by a reduction of freight rates, because, as has been shown by experts, a large per cent of the American ships of our coastwise trade is controlled by transcontinental railroads and rates would be fixed by them on the basis of what the traffic would bear. ABROGATES BALTIMORE PLATFORM. "No one has a higher regard for political platforms or has attempted to uphold them more tenaciously than myself. I have a particularly high regard for the Baltimore convention which nominated President Wilson and for the platform adopted there. When, however, a platform, through lack of full consideration or because of error in judgment, adopts a plank the demand of which is in plain conflict with a treaty which national legislators are obligated to support, it ought to be disregarded. Believing that the plank in the Baltimore platform on the subject of the canal tolls is in violation of this treaty, it will not control my views, but, on the contrary, I favor a repeal of the act of 1912, which exempts American vessels of the coastwise trade from the ¡ayment of canal tolls. This treaty, it seems to me, was inconsiderately entered into, my opinion in repect to it having undergone no change, but rather has been strengthened by subsequent events, including the increased cost of the canal from the estimated sum of $184,000,000 to more than $400,000,000. As long, however, as the treaty is in force national good faith demands that it should be respected by the United States." " Senator BRISTOow. I should like the committee, or the chairman, to call upon Mr. Grigg for a statement in regard to the allegation that the Panama Railroad Co. is a part of this alleged coastwise combine, and that it makes rates as a result of conferences with these combinations. The CHAIRMAN. If there be no objection, such a letter will be sent. Senator WALSH. Also a statement of the amount of tonnage their vessels carry, as compared with the tonnage capacity. Senator BRISTOW. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. The correspondence will be furnished to the committee to be considered in connection with the record. Senator BRISTOW. Do I understand Mr. Dearborn has made a statement? The CHAIRMAN. He made a statement, but I think that was on Saturday, in my absence. As I remarked a little while ago, it is possible I may have one or two or three letters on my desk which should go in, and if I find they have not been offered, with the consent of the committee I will reserve the right to hand them to the stenographer for the record. Senator SIMMONS. I understood this morning that we agreed that those statements should go in, and I stated at the same time that I should wish to put in some statements of gentlemen who have been here, one among them Mr. Rickard, who has been here and gone away. The CHAIRMAN. I imagine there will be no objection. Senator SIMMONS. I understand you to say the hearings are closed? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. (Thereupon at 6.15 o'clock p. m. the committee adjourned.) APPENDIX. NEWARK, N. J., April 27, 1914. Senator O'GORMAN, DEAR SENATOR: The Mr. Outerbridge, of New York, who recently appeared before your committee in favor of tolls repeal, is a Bermudan by birth, a British subject, and largely interested in a British steamship company. Yours, very respectfully, HELM & READY. BUREAU OF NAVIGATION, Hon. JAMES A. O'GORMAN, Chairman Committee on Interoceanic Canals, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. SIR: I inclose a statement which I was instructed to furnish, covering information in response to an inquiry of Senator Bristow. Respectfully, E. T. CHAMBERLAIN, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, New York, N. Y. BUREAU OF NAVIGATION, SIR: I have been instructed by the Senate Committee on Interoceanic Canals to secure a statement showing the names of the steamship lines out of the port of New York to the foreign ports in the West Indies, Mexico, Central and South America, together with the names and net tonnage of the vessels so employed by these steamship lines. Will you please forward such a statement at your earliest convenience? While the committee did not specify any particular period to be covered, I think the 12 months ended March 31, 1914, would best cover the matter. Respectfully, THE COMMISSIONER OF NAVIGATION, Washington, D. C. SIR: As requested by bureau letter 73580-N, of the 13th instant, I transmit herewith a statement showing the names of the steamship lines out of the port of New York to foreign ports in the West Indies, Mexico, Central and South America, together with the names and net tonnage of the vessels so employed by these steamship lines. Respectfully, H. C. STUART, Special Deputy Collector. Statement of lines of vessels operating regularly out of the port of New York to ports in the West Indies, Mexico, Central and South America, with the names and net tonnages of the several vessels employed. |