with the late Marquis of Salisbury, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and also Prime Minister, with whom, on the twenty-second of December, I had a long and interesting conversation on the subject.

"That same afternoon I cabled to Mr. Hay that there seemed to be no indication of opposition, much less hostility, on the part of the British Government to the construction by us of the proposed canal, and if the latter should be available to the ships of all nations on equal terms I felt that there would be no serious difficulty in effecting an agreement satisfactory to both nations.

"I should be happy to inclose copies of Mr. Secretary Hay's instructions, of my dispatch in reply, and of my cablegram aforesaid, were it not improper for me to do so without the permission of the Department of State. And, indeed, a detailed account of my interview with Lord Salisbury would unduly extend the dimensions of this letter.

"Its substance was, however, that he would be unable to give an official reply to my Government's suggestions until he had given the subject careful consideration and had conferred with the board of trade and other departments of the British Government. But he gave me to understand, confidentially, that in his opinion it was desirable such a canal be constructed; that a work so colossal could only be carried to a successful issue by a great power, and that the United States was that power. Lord Salisbury intimated, furthermore-also in confidence-that the British Government would not, after due consideration of the question, refuse to modify such provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty as stood in the way of our making

the canal, provided the ships of all nations should be guaranteed the use thereof on equal terms—a condition which he strongly emphasized.

"You are aware of the negotiations for a new treaty which were entered upon shortly afterwards by Mr. Hay and Lord Pauncefote, and the result thereof was the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty, to certain features of which the Senate refused its approval.

"The reasons for the Senate's action were for some time misunderstood in Great Britain and created a certain amount of feeling there, which reacted upon this country and caused a certain amount of tension.

"During that period I crossed the ocean several times and had private conversations with a number of the leading men of both countries, with a view to explaining what each really wanted, and to doing away with the misunderstandings which had arisen in that connection. I well remember discussing the questions at issue with several of the leading Senators of that day, of whom none, save Senator Lodge, are now members of that body; and among the many subjects touched upon I can remember no allusion whatever to the use of the canal without payment of tolls by our vessels engaged in the coasting trade.

"Eventually, as you may remember, negotiations were renewed for another treaty to take the place of the one to which the Senate had objected. These negotiations were conducted for the most part in London by Mr. Choate and Lord Pauncefote, who was in England on leave of absence, and whom Lord Lansdowne, the successor of Lord Salisbury as minister of foreign affairs,

had deputed to act in his behalf with regard to the details of the proposed arrangement.

"I was in constant touch, as secretary of the embassy, with these negotiations; each phase of which Mr. Choate was good enough to tell me of. Indeed I was often present during their discussion of the questions at issue, which took place for the most part at the embassy; and I never heard the exemption of our coastwise shipping from the payment of tolls mentioned in any connection.

"I have, furthermore, since the receipt of your letter, looked carefully over the many private and confidential letters which Mr. Hay and I wrote to each other from the time that he became Secretary of State until his death. They deal fully with public affairs, both domestic and international, but among the many references to the canal treaties and other questions pertaining thereto, I can find no allusion whatever to the exemption of our coastwise trading vessels from the payment of tolls.

"Under these circumstances there is but one way in which I can answer the inquiry contained in your letter -'as to the understanding of Mr. Hay and Lord Pauncefote on the question of the use of the canal by vessels engaged wholly in the coastwise trade'-to wit:

"(1) That the exemption of our coastwise shipping from the payment of tolls was never suggested to, nor by, anyone connected with the negotiation of the HayPauncefote treaties in this country or in England;

"(2) That, from the day on which I opened the negotiations with Lord Salisbury for the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty until the ratification of the HayPauncefote treaty, the words 'all nations' and 'equal

terms' were understood to refer to the United States as well as to all other nations, by every one of those, whether American or British, who had anything to do with the negotiations whereof the treaty last mentioned was the result."

The views herein expressed are in complete accord with those of Ex-Ambassador Choate to the effect that free transportation to American coastwise shipping is in violation of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty.

HENRY WHITE TO SENATOR SIMMONS

"The Washington Post of yesterday quotes former Senator Foraker as saying: 'I have personal knowledge that both Mr. Hay and Mr. Henry White had full knowledge of what the Senate demanded and supposed we were getting,' *

* *

"As I am leaving tomorrow for Germany, and may not see you again for some time, I think it well to let you know that I agree with that statement. I not only am under the impression that I knew the reasons which caused the Senate to object to certain provisions of the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty, but I am in sympathy with that body's action. I had no reason, however, to suppose from anything said to me by any Senator or by anyone else that the use of the canal by our vessels engaged in the coasting trade without payment of tolls had any connection therewith.

"Mr. Foraker is one of the Senators referred to in my letter to Senator McCumber and in my statement to the committee, with whom I had conversations after the rejection of the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty. I well

remember an interesting interview which I had with him in 1901 at his house in Washington, and during which we went into what I supposed to be all of the questions at issue between the two Governments; but as far as I can recollect, no allusion was made by either the Senator or me to the exemption of our vessels from the payment of tolls in passing through the Panama Canal."

CHOATE TO SECRETARY HAY

"In this situation, as I do not see anything likely to be required of me that may not be just as well done by Mr. White, who knows your mind and mine exactly, and has been fully advised of all that has been done, I propose to keep my long-cherished purpose of sailing on the Philadelphia on Saturday, the 12th, unless something to the contrary turns up in the meantime. Quite possibly I may hear before Saturday that Lord Salisbury has approved."

This statement of Ambassador Choate shows that any statement made by Henry White on the tolls question is entitled to great weight. The following paragraph from Representative Stevens' great speech in the House in favor of the tolls-exemption repeal bill appropriately concludes the foregoing by Henry White:

"Only a few weeks ago Hon. Henry White delivered an address in Washington, in which he clearly and strongly affirmed the terms stated in the original note and correspondence, that the intention always existed on the part of all the officials of both Governments that vessels of commerce of both and all nations should always be