The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1898-03-03

Elkins said that he would first abolish
the bonding privileges and consular seals
at Vancouver.
The effect of this would be to divert
trade from the Orient to San Francisco.
Secondly, he would compel obedience 10
interstate commerce statutes by all lines
connecting with the Canadian Pacific.
Thirdly He would enforce section ~
of the present tariff law in accordance
with its meaning and as it reads.
Mr.. Elkins explained that the bonding
privilege had grown up simply as Gus
tom under permission of the treasury ue-
partment. 1t was authorized by the treaty
of Washington and is not warranted py
any law or any treaty. be then READ
opinions of ex-President Harrison, the
late Secretary Window, ex-Secretary
Charles Foster and former Attorney Cen
eral Miller, in support OF ms posltlon.
Concerning the difficulties in bringing
ahoi1t what he deems desirable changes.
Mr.. Elkins said:
The only difficulty about stopping the
aggressions of the Canadian Pacific is
that some local interests in New England
and in the Northwest are subserved. 1t is
unfair that one-twentieth of the popula-
ton should have these advantages nine
teen twentieths could not. New England
has no right to get her supplies cheaper
than any other section OF the country.
New England always fair on the tariff
should be fair on this question.
Section % Of tie present tariff law
affords complete remedy to the existing
evils, but it alarmed New England, Min
sideration, the attorney general decided
that it could not be enforced.
s'The policy not to enforce section ~
put the government in the awkard
position of the treasury refusing to collect
the revenue provided in this sction,' said
Mr.. Elkins, 1.-THE law should have been
enforced just as it passed congress and II
objected to by importers or foreigners.
they could have appealed to the courts -
Mr. Ellzins said that New England had
most to do in making of the Dingley law.
Section 20, in his opinion, was the best
section in the bill, the most American
and most in American interests, yet New
England statesmen bad disclaimed having
ANYTHING to do with the paternity OF the
section, some declaring it had slipped in
| to the bill.
In conclusion, Mr.. Elkins said that we
were on the threshold of commercial
war among nations for extension of COM
merce. The conflict is inevitable.
''It seems ncw,' said he. LAS IL the
this war single handed. asking no favors
and expecting none. While we do not
court such conflict we need not shrink
| from it, The interest of our shipping and
our commercial relations with Canada
cannot be made worse. Any change will
make them better. In order to meet this
war the United States should restore its
shipping and stop the aggresslons OF the
| Canadian Pacific"
| When Mr.. Ellxins referred to the mill
tary advantages of the Canadian Pacific,
and it's rongholds-Halifax and Es-
l NJ. 0f MaGEa0hnGaftQ
| interrupted him with the remark that the
senator need have no apprehension OF
the British guns at those points, as they
| would endanger Americans only in the
events of their kicking, as if any trouble
should occur, Americans would be behind
those guns.
| OF. inquired Mr.. Platt of Connecticut,
the Canadian Pacific were subject to
the long and short haul clause OF the IN
| terstate commerce law, would 1t be able
to take away the business of our rail-
road?''
ut would not,'' replied Mr.. Elkins,
s'The Senator has struck the point OF
this entire matter. While our railroads
are hampered by that law, the Canadian
Pacific ia free from it's restrictions
In the course of reply to Mr. Elkins.
Mr. Hoar expressed some regret that
Mr.. Elkins had brought into the discus
sion of the bill 80 much matter that was
| irrelevant. He agreed with Mr.. Elkins
that the executive departments OF the
government had the power that they
ought to exercise to prevent Canada
from imposing on this country, or its
business interests. He also agreed with
him that the destruction of the seal herds
was a reproach to civilization and that
| the denial of the privileges OF hospitality
! to our fishermen was reproach. he
| held, too, that Canada ought not to enjoy
any bonding privilege which the United
| States did not also have, and he perfectly
agreed with Mr.. Elkins that the business
of supplying American citizens in Alaska
ought not in any way to be burdened by
| Canadian monopoly. He expressed the
belief, however, that Mr.. Elkins ought
not to have taken advantage OF this de-
sire on the part of the Senate to accom-
plish these objects by introducing lnto
| the discussion collateral matter. Mr.
Hoar said he did not agree with MT.
Elkins. as to the danger on account OF
| the Canadian Pacific in time OF wer. AS
| a matter of fact these 1000 miles OF road
would be n hostage in case of hostilltles.
Butt independent of this factor, the Unit,
ed States would be entirely capable OF
taking care of themselves. II they had
done so during the revolution and In the
year of 1872, they could certainly do sc
1 now.H He did.not believe in encouraging the
| talk of possible hostilities with friend
" power and wanted especially to dis
courage all ideas of danger from the
guns supposed to be pointing In our oil
rection from Halifax and Esquimault.
MIR. Hoar asserted that neither the Unit.
ed States nor Great Britain could afford
| to go to war because of ties of various
kinds which bind together the two
countries. During the civil war In this
country two cruisers had swept the com
nerce from the sea, and England knew
only too we'll what would be the effect OF
o general war upon her commerce at the
present time Hence he did not think il
! necessary that tho people of the United
States should lie awake nights in conten
plation of a hostile invasion from Cana
do. He would agree, however, that the be.
bayior of Canada had often been unjust
and unfair. He hoped that the time
would come when justice should be done
and equality established. and he wal
especially sorry that Mr.. Elkins should
lave raised this railroad question while
the effort to secure this end was being
made
Mr.. Nelson of Minnesota, made protest
against Mr.. Elkins's proposition on the
ground that it was aimed at the Interests
of the farmers of the Northwest. The
Canadian Pacific railroad, he said, hao