The following colloquy from the hearings before the Committee on Interoceanic Canals, United States Senate, shows what the then United States Senate considered to be the matter of controlling importance and upon what its attention was focused: "SENATOR PAGE. I would like to know, if I can, just what the Senator thinks about this question of free tolls for the United States coastwise vessels at the time the second Hay-Pauncefote treaty was being considered. Speaking from your own knowledge, as one of the Committee on Foreign Relations, as well as a member of the Senate, at the time of the passage of the act, can you say without qualification that in your judgment the Hay-Pauncefote treaty would not have been ratified by the Senate if it had believed that the United States could not under that treaty exempt its coastwise vessels from tolls? "MR. FORAKER. No; I cannot say that without qualification. I can say this, that it is my impression, however, and it was certainly my understanding, that we were making a treaty under which we could do anything we saw fit to do with respect to our own vessels. We could exempt them from tolls, if we wanted to; but that was not seriously considered at that time because it was to be an enterprise that would cost a great deal of money, and I think now that, in so far as I can recall, the state of my mind on that subject-in so far as I had any mind on the subject-was that it would be a long time before we would reach a place where we would want to exempt anybody from the payment of toll who wanted to use the canal. But the right of the United States to pass through any ships she saw fit was unquestionably the prevailing thought in the Senate, according to my understanding. We would not think of charging our battleships anything or our own revenue cutters anything for passing through the canal which we had built with so much money, and in no instance would we think of doing with our own ships anything except what our own best interests might justify us in doing. All other nations were to be on terms of absolute equality with respect to the use of the canal. That was the prevailing thought I had and we did not want any infringing, because we were building it primarily as a war necessity-a measure of defense, and not for the purpose of commerce. "SENATOR BRANDEGEE. It has been stated here by several witnesses that one of the principal objects in the construction of the canal was to lower the rates of the transcontinental railroads. What do you say about that? "MR. FORAKER. I think the first great purpose of the canal was national defense; to transfer our navy back and forth from one side to the other as necessity might require. Our navy was not very large; that is, not large in proportion to our country. It is now much larger. Our country has two ocean fronts, and you had to go around Cape Horn to pass from one to the other. The fact of the Oregon having to go around the Horn during the Spanish-American War was the precipitating cause of the action we took. "SENATOR BRANDEGEE. I agree with you. national defense was the The following colloquy from the hearings before the Committee on Interoceanic Canals, United States Senate, shows what the then United States Senate considered to be the matter of controlling importance and upon what its attention was focused: "SENATOR PAGE. I would like to know, if I can, just what the Senator thinks about this question of free tolls for the United States coastwise vessels at the time the second Hay-Pauncefote treaty was being considered. Speaking from your own knowledge, as one of the Committee on Foreign Relations, as well as a member of the Senate, at the time of the passage of the act, can you say without qualification that in your judgment the Hay-Pauncefote treaty would not have been ratified by the Senate if it had believed that the United States could not under that treaty exempt its coastwise vessels from tolls? "MR. FORAKER. No; No; I cannot say that without qualification. I can say this, that it is my impression, however, and it was certainly my understanding, that we were making a treaty under which we could do anything we saw fit to do with respect to our own vessels. We could exempt them from tolls, if we wanted to; but that was not seriously considered at that time because it was to be an enterprise that would cost a great deal of money, and I think now that, in so far as I can recall, the state of my mind on that subject-in so far as I had any mind on the subject-was that it would be a long time before we would reach a place where we would want to exempt anybody from the payment of toll who wanted to use the canal. But the right of the United States to pass through any ships she saw fit was unquestionably the prevailing thought in the Senate, according to my understanding. We would not think of charging our battleships anything or our own revenue cutters anything for passing through the canal which we had built with so much money, and in no instance would we think of doing with our own ships anything except what our own best interests might justify us in doing. All other nations were to be on terms of absolute equality with respect to the use of the canal. That was the prevailing thought I had and we did not want any infringing, because we were building it primarily as a war necessity-a measure of defense, and not for the purpose of commerce. "SENATOR BRANDEGEE. It has been stated here by several witnesses that one of the principal objects in the construction of the canal was to lower the rates of the transcontinental railroads. What do you say about that? “MR. FORAKER. I think the first great purpose of the canal was national defense; to transfer our navy back and forth from one side to the other as necessity might require. Our navy was not very large; that is, not large in proportion to our country. It is now much larger. Our country has two ocean fronts, and you had to go around Cape Horn to pass from one to the other. The fact of the Oregon having to go around the Horn during the Spanish-American War was the precipitating cause of the action we took. "SENATOR BRANDEGEE. I agree with you. "MR. FORAKER. And national defense was the primary purpose with the majority of Senators. I cannot say that it was the sole purpose." "That was not seriously considered at that time" (see page 57) is important. But that that was seriously considered at that time by Great Britain is equally important. "National defense was the primary purpose with the majority of Senators"-see above. Equal and just tolls for all units of traffic using the canal was the primary purpose with Great Britain. Presumably each insisted on getting what it wanted most and the HayPauncefote treaty construed in the light of history shows that each did get what it wanted most. We can state this point in greater detail as follows: The United States needed the Panama Canal as a military and naval asset, and therefore sought the modification of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty with that end in view. Great Britain desired the construction of the canal because of its large commercial interests. The one sought ownership and control as a military necessity; the other sought conditions and charges of traffic that would be just and equitable -that would be equal for identical units of traffic using the canal. The paramount object desired by the two contracting parties was different. Final agreement was secured by writing into the Hay-Pauncefote treaty the controlling object of each of the two contracting parties. The United States secured thereby its desired military and naval asset. Great Britain secured thereby the assurance of equality in tolls between our nationals and its own subjects. Representative Stevens throws light on the construction of treaties in the following: |
