"Second. Was it understood that these words also included our own vessels engaged in the coastwise trade?

"I answer both of these questions most emphatically in the affirmative. The phrase quoted, 'vessels of commerce and war of all nations,' certainly included our own vessels, and was so understood by our own State Department and by the foreign office of Great Britain. It was understood by the same parties that these words also included our own vessels engaged in the coastwise trade. *

*

"When we came to the negotiation of this last treaty, that of 1901, there was no question that, as between the United States and Great Britain, the canal should be open to the citizens and subjects of both on equal terms, and that it should also be open on like terms to the citizens and subjects of every other State that brought itself within. the category prescribed. On that point there was really nothing to discuss, and in the whole course of the negotiations there was never a suggestion on either side that the words 'the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations' meant anything different from the natural and obvious meaning of these words. Such language admitted of the exemption or exception of no particular kind of vessels of commerce and of war of any nation, whether of vessels engaged in foreign trade or coastwise trade, or of steam vessels or sailing vessels, or of black vessels or white vessels, or of iron vessels or wooden vessels. The parties to the negotiation tried to use terms of the meaning of which there could be no doubt or dispute, and they meant what they said and said what they meant.

"It is true that in many treaties there have been

specific exceptions of vessels engaged in the coastwise trade, and it would have been easy to insert it here. But nobody ever suggested that there should or could be such an exception or exemption inserted by implication in this treaty.

*

"Of course, I submitted from time to time as the negotiations proceeded the substance of all our negotiations to our Secretary of State in dispatches and private letters, all of which, or copies of which, are, as I believe, on file in the State Department and are doubtless open to the examination of Senators. And Lord Pauncefote in like manner was in frequent communication with Lord Lansdowne or the foreign office of Great Britain, and, of course, submitted all that was said and done between us to them. So when what you refer to in your letter as the State Departments of the two countries approved and adopted the result of our work and exchanged ratifications of the treaty as it stands, they necessarily intended that the words 'the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations' included our own vessels as well as those of Great Britain, and also included our own vessels engaged in the coastwise trade.

"There was no kind of vessel that the words used did not include. I am not at liberty to furnish you with copies of my reports made from time to time to Colonel Hay of the negotiations, but I have carefully examined them to see whether any suggestion was made on either side of the possibility of the exemption or exception of our vessels engaged in the coastwise trade and find absolutely none."

"It is impossible, in my judgment, to discuss the

question fairly on the true interpretation of the treaty and come to any other conclusion than that the repeal of the exemption clause in the act is necessary out of due regard for our national honor and good faith."

Elsewhere the former ambassador stated:

"As the lips of both these diplomatists and great patriots, who were true to their own countries and each regardful of the rights of the other, are sealed in death, I think that it is proper that I should say what I think both of them, if they were here today, would say that the clause in the Panama Toll act, exempting coastwise American shipping from the payment of tolls, is in direct violation of the treaty.

"I venture to say that in the whole course of the negotiations of this particular treaty, no claim, no suggestion, was made that there should be any exemption of anybody."

CHOATE TO SENATOR O'GORMAN

"I avail myself of your kind permission to submit anything of mine not already published that might throw light on the pending question.

"I accordingly, with the express permission of the Secretary of State, submit to your committee the inclosed copies of letters written by me to Secretary Hay between August 3 and October 12, 1901, giving step by step the negotiations between Lord Lansdowne and Lord Pauncefote and myself in regard to the Hay-Pauncefote treaty.

"These, if carefully perused, will, I think, be found to confirm my views that the clause in the Panama Canal

act exempting our coastwise shipping from tolls is a clear violation of the treaty."

CHOATE TO HENRY WHITE

"I wrote to the chairman of the committee, Senator O'Gorman, inclosing to him, by the express permission of the Secretary of State, a copy of my letters to Secretary Hay between August 3 and October 12, 1901, the same that you have. To my mind they establish beyond question the intent of the parties engaged in the negotiation, that the treaty should mean exactly what it says, and excludes the possibility of any exemption of any kind of vessels of the United States. Equality between Great Britain and the United States is the constant theme, and especially in my last letter of October 2, 1901, where I speak of Lord Lansdowne's part in the matter, and say, 'He has shown an earnest desire to bring to an amicable settlement, honorable alike to both parties, this long and important controversy between the two nations. In substance, he abrogates the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, gives us an American canal, ours to build as and where we like, to own, control and govern, on the sole condition of its being always neutral and free for the passage of the ships of all nations on equal terms, except that if we get into a war with any nation we can shut its ships out and take care of ourselves.' This was the summing up of our whole two months' negotiation."

Equality between Great Britain and the United States in the use of the canal is the constant theme. It was to be effected by a new treaty "without impairing the 'general principle' of neutralization" established in Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.

CHOATE DEFINES "GENERAL PRINCIPLE"

"As Article VIII stands in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty it undoubtedly contemplates further treaty stipulations, not 'these' treaty stipulations, in case any other interoceanic route either by land or by water should 'prove to be practicable,' and it proceeds to state what the general principle to be applied is to be, viz., no other charges or conditions of traffic therein 'than are just and equitable,' and that said canals or railways, being open to the subjects of Great Britain and the United States on equal terms, shall also be open on like terms to the subjects and citizens of other States, which I believe to be the real general principle (of neutralization, if you choose to call it so) intended to be asserted by this eighth article of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty."-Letter dated August 20, 1901.

In order to be absolutely sure that the "general principle" is reaffirmed in the new treaty being drafted, Lord Lansdowne suggested that Article 3A, which follows, be incorporated:

"In view of the permanent character of this treaty, whereby the general principle established by Article VIII of the Clayton-Bulwer convention is reaffirmed, the high contracting parties hereby declare and agree that the rules laid down in the last preceding article shall, so far as they may be applicable, govern all interoceanic communications across the isthmus which connects North and South America, and that no change of territorial sovereignty, or other change of circumstances, shall affect such general principle or the obligations of the high contracting parties under the present treaty."