Evening journal., 1914-05-28

did cover specifically our ooastwise yes
sells, and that therefore we are bound in
good faith not to discriminate in their
favor. Admitting, for the sake OF argu
ment, that the above assertion was cor
rect, il could only have referred to the
understanding between the British gov
ernment and the representatives of the
executive branch OF our own government
who conducted the negotiations; but
Mr.. President, under the Constitution
the President of the United States does
not possess the exclusive treaty making
power. but shares il with the Senate.
In fairness. therefore, when we consider
tins point, the intent of the Senate
when il ratified the treaty should be
taken into account, and it is the prac-
ticallv unanimous testimony Of those
who were then members of that body
that il was the clear and definite under
standing of the Senate that the United
states had the full right TO exempt its
coastwise vessels from the imposition
of tolls without incurring any inputa-
ton of thereby violating the treaty.
some two years later, the situs-
ton was entirely changed. when the
Republic Of Panama ceded TO our
country a tract of territory extending
from the Atlantic Ocean, known as the
Canal Zone, over which the United
states enjoys full and complete SOW
erelgnty as is affirmed by decision
OF the Supreme Court. Under these
conditions 1t is evident that our coast
wise vessels plying between the At
/ lantic and Pacific and not touching al
anv foreign ports would be always
4 within American territory except
when on the high seas, and that their
status. therefore, would be identical
with those vessels which sail from
one Atlantic port to another, or from
one Pacific port to another. It is to
he observed that the change of con-
ditions incident TO our newly acquired
sovereignty was recognized by Great
britain in her second note, which con-
cedeH that
pNow that the United States
has become the practical SOW
ereign cf the canal, his majes-
tvs government do not question
its title to exercise belligerent
rights for its pl Otection."
Taking up now. Mr.. President, the
second branch Of my subject-as e
the economic questions involved
will say that have always been
strong advocate OF a wise and we'll
considered system Of subsidies fol
/ American commerce, believing this Il
he the only way in which our almos
I non-exlstent merchant marine can b'
restored. Two years ago 1 vote'
against the conference report on tn
Act TO provide for the opening, main
tenance, protection and operation o
the Panama Canal and when the vot
was taken on the motion to strik
out the clause exempting American
coastwise vessels from the paymen
OF tolls, / stated that had | not beel
paired I would have voted Yea NJ
& action at that time was based ol
the belief that il subsidies we're to b
; granted to our eoastwise shipping,
was far wiser and better TO gran
: them directly and openly by refund
ing their canal tolls, than TO do so 4
the indirect way provided for in tn
act just mentioned, particularly a
by the former method we would nc
, have involved ourselves in contrG
b versy as to the observance or nor
observance Of our treaty obligation
Had the interests of our coastwis
: shipping been thus treated, the Bri
ish government would have had n
! valid grounds for objection, as lik
all other great powers, il has alway
granted subsidies to its own merchar
b marine, these subsidies being one {
> the factors which have brought abor
the practical extinction Of our mel
p chant marine
"Now, Mr. President ! am awar
: OF the fact that IL is alleged that a
exemption from tolls is not a sui
> sidy, and the junior Senator froi
New York in his vorv able speech o
! the bill now befora the Senate. ha
= defined a subsidy as "a gift of publ
} funds from the government 30
, private person OF corporation, to al
I in the establishment or support OF a
enterprise deemed advantageous {
{ the public which definition, in m
e judgment. is Ear too narrow.
c subsidy is defined in webster's II