The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1912-07-13
FATHER OF PANAMA
CANAL SAYS TREATY
WAS NOT NECESSARY

Representative Adsmson of Georgia,
chairman of the House Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce. who
framed the bill which in an amended
form passed the House, yesterday gave
out lengthy statement. setting forth
his attitude in the present tangle.
Judge Adamson is looked upon by
many as the father OF the movement
which eliminated in the commencement
OF work on the Panama Canal In his
statement he sets forth that he did not
believe at the time II was negotiated
that the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. which
Great Britain now holds would be vio-
lated by the proposed free passage for
American ships through the canal, was
necessary to do away with the Clayton
Bulwer treaty. which, 1t was held. might
initiate against the fertilization OF the
canal by this country.
Judge Adamson's statement follows:
when We were agitating the building
of the canal the Clayton-Bulver treaty
seemed to prevent building and fortify-
ing a government canal and collecting
tolls for the United States Treasury. A
Senate committee investigated the sub
ject and declared the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty obsolete concurred in that
view. and in the House and elsewhere
had urged that We denounce and abro-
gate the Clayton Bulwer treaty. contract
with the Central American republic for
a route. and build the canal without
regard to England or any European
power. That was the time to do it. and
IL was easy then. but was over
ruled: the administration negotiating a
modification n the Clayton Bulwer
treaty. securing the right for the
United States TO construct a government
canal, fortify il, operate II, and take all
the profits OF its operation, but permit
ting England to retain our obligations
to operate the canal on equal terms to
all. which was the main spirit of the
Clayton Bulwer treaty.
The Senate ratified that treaty, ex-
pressly refusing on roll call to reserve
the right 10 the United States of dis
eliminating in favor of its own coast
bill and made a treaty with Colombia
and afterward with Panama. in which
We agreed 10 build the canal and oper-
ate ii according to the treaty We had ar
ranged with England. The advocates Of
discrimination in favor of American
ships began to work at once. and they
have persistently and extensively work
ed ever since. When We undertook to
legislate for the operation of the canal
permission to legislate for the opening
of the canal and postpone the consider
alton of the claims of all special inter-
ests. We begged that the ship inter
ests demanding discrimination in their
own favor and against railroad ships
and other ships should permit US to post
pone the consideration of those subjects
until We opened the canal. observed its
operations. and determined from develop
not 10 -1. to-,
might be needed or demanded. and what
We might afford to enact on those sub
jects, but We were overruled. and hav-
ing been overruled and having been
compelled to consider those two sub
Jects. the House committee reported a
bill in entire accord with the treaty
stipulations. and in entire accord with
the interests of the Federal Treasury
and the American people. / admit our
action did not grant the demands of
either the ship interests or the railroad
interests, the capitalists behind both
of which appear to be akin. il not iden-
teal Our work is of record: the House
supported the committee on the railroad
feature, but Overruled us in our refusal
to divert the Peoples money from the
Treasury by remittinS tolls and give
it TO the ship trusts.
Delay Fault of Senate.
The bill went to the Senate and ended
by discussion of it for the present. and /
hope l will be excused from further refer
ence to 1t until the Senate shall have acted
upon it. II there should be DELAY in the
legislation to open the canal the fault can
not be laid at our door, for We urged that
in this matchless enterprise the govern
ment be allowed to demonstrate the re-
suits of its work by opening the canal
unhampered by these demands of special
interests. II the representatives of those
interests had consented We would have
omitted those provisions both as to the
railroads and exemption of American
ships from tolls and authorized the Presi-
dent to OPEN the canal.
The ship subsidy people ought to have
been willing to rely on independent leg
islation to secure bonus for their special
interests il Congress wishes TO furnish il.
I am sure We were able to take care of
the railroad situation outside of the canal
bill. and if section II had been eliminated
the House Committee would have con-
sidered that section and reported 1t as
a separate bill These who demand special
benefits for the ships had the same reli-
ance. II their cause is just. or even
plausible. they ought to have been will
ing to take chance by direct legislation
rather than embarrass the canal enter
prise, which was not undertaken as a
promoter of private gain or corporate
interests. Thus they could have cleared
the canal bill of all membranes and
permitted force to be organized and the
canal opened and operated. and Congress
would still be here to consider railroad
legislation and bonuses of special inter-
ests, shipping or otherwise.
so far as section II is concerned re-
gard II as one OF more Importance to
American commerce than the Panama
Canal itself. but II would not have been
put in the canal bill for the insistence of