Bisbee daily review., 1914-08-06
SENATOR SMITH GAVE REASONS IN SPEECH
 FOR HIS TOLL VOTE

In a recent speech i nthe senate on the question of the Panama canal tolls Senator Marcus P Smith said in part
 "Alr President ] do not believe. for reasons already stated that the treaty involved in any way our coastwise trade In this judgment ] find my self opposed to many of the ablest minds and purest patriots in this
 country. There is a divergence of opinion in England in the question: in Germany and France, and probably all other interested nations The pres ident believes that the term "all na- tions" used in the treaty applies Co the ships engaged in the coastwise trade of the United States So be. lieving. he has had the courage to ap- peal 10 ms to keep sacred our national promise and preserve our national honor from stain. Having this con- vction. and seeing his duty under
 it. knowing the clomor it would
 cause and the false motive which would be assigned nevertheless,
 with high purpose and supreme cour- age advised us to do what he be-
 ueved was our great duty to do and what he would nave done if he had
 as being a tool of Englandetaoinnn the power. For this he is denounced as being a tool of England-un-Amer- ican in heart-by those having some purpose to iniure him or the party of which he.is the head ! ann however
 graufed to find myself in thorough accord with the president in his dee laration that freedom from tolls of American-owned ships is a mistaken domestic policy On that declaration every democrat who feels as do can heartily unite in suppressing the sub
 sidy granting free passage through
 the canal of ships owned by certain
 Americans. while the balance Of our citizens are taxed to pay for its up- keep. I would not vote for this ap- peal bin if by such vote ! would
 c0ncede England's contention Una,
 Che treaty bound us to repeal it.
 would not vote for this bin without
 an amendment aaying every Ameri-
 can right Of ownership and sovereign
 ty over the canal
 Mir. President ] have, without pre-
 seuHng the treaty and without any purpose to answer arguments from the opposing side in this controversy rapidly given the reasons which di 1. rect my course in relation to it. The other and controlling question here involved merits brief attention T re fer to the plain open. bare-faced sub
 sidy in this exemption of tolls. A shiT owned by am American corporation il n0 more am AmericaE ship than .
 locomotive on any Of our railroads fl am American engine Each is private | property. owned by private parties and both are engaged in transporting ! persons and freight for private prof it and both win charge an the trar ! fife win bear. whether you do or d' i not subsidize the one by large lan' ! grants and the other by paying out Q Che public treasury money which th l user of the canal should pay for it | upkeep Is this the expiring wall o | Che vigorous ship-subsidy sentimen SO rampant in this chamber when th republicans were in power?
 1T this is Che small burglars iimm by which you hope Co break into th treasury vaults for larger sums { i be vainly applied i'm subsidies to ou
 overseas trade. you will find at las
 that no subsidy however great wi
 ever restore Co ms profitable bus ! ness which takes ita profits from th l public Is a parasite not an ndustw ] Il ]. an oblgatlon. nol an aaseL Th