"In my own judgment, very fully considered and maturely formed, that exemption constitutes a mistaken economic policy from every point of view, and is, moreover, in plain contravention of the treaty with Great Britain concerning the canal concluded on November 18, 1901. But I have not come to urge upon you my personal views. I have come to state to you a fact and a situation. Whatever may be our own differences of opinion concerning this much debated measure, its meaning is not debated outside the United States. Everywhere else the language of the treaty is given but one interpretation, and that interpretation precludes the exemption I am asking you to repeal. We consented to the treaty; its language we accepted, if we did not originate it; and we are too big, too powerful, too self-respecting a Nation to interpret with a too strained or refined reading the words of our own promises just because we have power enough to give us leave to read them as we please. The large thing to do is the only thing we can afford to do, a voluntary withdrawal from the position everywhere questioned and misunderstood. We ought to reverse our action without raising the question whether we were right or wrong, and so once more deserve our reputation for generosity and for the redemption of every obligation without quibble or hesitation.

"I ask this of you in support of the foreign policy of the administration. I shall not know how to deal with other matters of even greater delicacy and nearer consequence if you do not grant it to me in ungrudging measure."

The high moral purpose of this memorable state paper is recognized abroad. Sir Edward Grey, the British

Foreign Secretary, complemented it in a speech in the House of Commons. In the course of his remarks, he exposed misrepresentation, and, in so doing, revealed the exalted sense of justice of our President. The following excerpts from Sir Edward Grey's speech should have the widest circulation:

"It is due to the President of the United States and to ourselves that I should so far as possible clear away that misrepresentation. It was stated in some quarters that the settlement was the result of bargaining or diplomatic pressure. Since President Wilson came into office no correspondence has passed, and it ought to be realized in the United States that any line President Wilson has taken was not because it was our line, but his own.

"President Wilson's attitude was not the result of any diplomatic communication since he has come into power and it must have been the result of papers already published to all the world.

"It has not been done to please us or in the interests of good relations, but I believe from a much greater motive the feeling that a government which is to use its influence among the nations to make relations better must never when the occasion arises flinch or quail from interpreting treaty rights in a strictly fair spirit.”

The following is in harmony therewith:

"London, July 4.-Viscount Bryce, former British Ambassador to the United States, speaking at the Independence Day dinner of the American Society, held at the Savoy tonight, paid a high tribute to President Wilson. He said:

66

'Courage is a virtue rare among politicians. What we have all admired in the President is his courage in the matter of the canal tolls.'

"Absolutely no pressure was brought to bear by Great Britain to obtain repeal of the tolls-exemption clause of the Panama Canal act,' he said. He (James Bryce) had told his Government that if President Wilson thought it right to repeal the clause or submit the matter to arbitration he would do it.

"Ambassador Page said the last British letter to the United States Government relating to the canal was written by Ambassador Bryce before the end of the Taft administration."

President Wilson's attitude toward the tolls-exemption clause of the Panama Canal act was reaffirmed in his Fourth of July address at Independence Hall. It is reported as follows:

"I say that it is patriotic sometimes to prefer the honor of the country to its material interest. Would you rather be deemed by all nations of the world incapable of keeping your treaty obligations in order that you might have free tolls for American ships? The treaty under which we gave up that right may have been a mistaken treaty, but there was no mistake about its meaning.

"When I have made a promise as a man I try to keep it, and I know of no other rule permissible to a nation. The most distinguished nation in the world is the nation that can and will keep its promises even to its own hurt. And I want to say, parenthetically, that I do not think anybody was hurt. I cannot be enthusiastic for subsidies to a monopoly, but let those who are enthusiastic

for subsidies ask themselves whether they prefer subsidies to unsullied honor."

Tolls-exemptions is a question in which international and not domestic considerations are controlling. As such, political considerations should not have entered into or influenced its discussion. Therefore, a work of this character is properly prepared by persons not members of President Wilson's party but who are in complete agreement with him. The authors of this work are in complete accord with the President's interpretation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. As enrolled members of the Progressive Party, they were also politically qualified for the undertaking. This is one reason why preference was given, in the use of quotations, to arguments advanced by members of the Republican Party.

The controlling reason was the fact that Senators Root, Burton, Lodge, McCumber and Representative Stevens were, at the time, in an official way in touch with negotiators of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty and had firsthand knowledge of the intent of the negotiators. They were in a position to learn the truth and they did.

The then administration was Republican. They belonged to the inner political circle or were affiliated with a member or members of that circle. Therefore, what they say in support of the tolls policy of the President is of such importance that it should be final with reasonable men.

This work is published for the purpose of showing that the Hay-Pauncefote treaty is a world-pact, and, as interpreted by Sir Edward Grey, is an agreement without a flaw as far as concerns all parties in interest. It should be continued without modification as long as the Panama

Canal endures. If this work contributes aught to secure this end, the result will have justified its publication.

The notable introductions to this work by Secretary Bryan, ex-Ambassador Straus and Senator Hughes make this book to an appreciable degree their handiwork. The authors share with them whatever merit it has and whatever success it may attain.

We pause to record our deep appreciation for courtesies shown us in the preparation of this work by Senator Hughes of New Jersey. Words cannot adequately express the extent of our obligations and of our gratefulness to the Senator.