Evening journal., 1914-05-29
FRIDAY MAY 29. 1914
sENATOR pUPONTs POSITION.

SENATOR DUPONTS POSITION.
n a statesmanke and scholarly address which re-
4 yealed how carefully he had studied the subject
Col Henry A. DUPONT, senior United states Senator
from Delaware, yesterday placed himself record
as being opposed to the Wilson bill proposing the re-
peal of that part of the Panama Canal act which
empts from the payment of toll American coastwise
ships which may pass through the Canal He
also made it clear that arbitration, before
proper tribunal of the questions in dispute
From start to finish the speech appeal to
the reason and not to the passion and prejudice his
We printed it in full yesterday and it cannot
have failed to carry conviction to the minds many
American citizens who up to that time had taken
no decided stand upon this exceedingly important
question That it listened to with close attention
and interest by the Senator's colleagues and that many
Of them expressed their approval of the spirit It
veyed is not surprising. In fact, it is admitted gem
orally that it sheds new and a much-needed light
upon this vexed question which has agitated for
months both the American and the European mind.
Senator dupont grouped under three heads the var-
GUS questions that have arisen in the controversy.
That grouping follows:
q. AS to whether the coastwise exemption provided
for in the Panama act in violation of the Hay
Pauncefote Treaty 1901 asserted by the British
government and by President Wilson.
so. As to the economic questions involved in the
peal Of the coastwise exemption.
--~xs AS to the precedents which might thereby be
created and as to our moral and patriotic obligations
to the people of the United States"
The Senator did not cucumber his speech with the
diplomatic history of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. He
simply injected into what he said enough that his
TO carry and keep connected and logical the thread
of his forceul argument against the proposed repeater
The Senator raised the point that when the Hay
Pauncefote treaty concluded in 1901 the vessels
engaged exclusively in coaswse trade consisted OF
those enrolled under our navigation avs and which
paid annual license to government
"As to the Hay-Pauncefoe Treaty referred canal
which was TO be constructed on the soil ii foreign
power, II is serious question whether the treaty
could have referred to coastwise vessels nasmuch
such vessels sailing from Atlantic port to "a Pa
cnc port or the reverse and which TO reach their des
unaton would have had to pass for some forty miles
through the territory Of foreign nation, We're evil
IDENTIFY differentiated from vessels engaged i'm do
mestic commerce which sailed directly from port
to another of this country and beyond it's
jurisdiction except when on the high seas" the Sem
ator contended. 81 have been unable bring myself
to believe Mr. President that when the treaty OF 1901
negotiated the British government had our coast
wise vessels specifically in mind. believe that these
vessels excluded from consideration not only
cause they engaged exclusively i'm domestic COM
merce with which British ships could not compete but
because domestic commerce In general cabotage
is called in continental Europe, refers exclusively to
commerce carried on under domestic jurisdiction. A
preclsey analogous case win Whlch the brlusn gov
erument must necessarily have been familiar, is to be
fohnd in Europe, the commerce of Russia between its
ports on the Baltic Sea and its ports on the Black Sea-
which only reaches its destination by passing for
many miles through the Dardanoles in Turkish ter
trade.
"The assertion has been made that ii was clearly
understood between the contracting powers that the
above rule did specifically coastwise YES.
sells and that therefore are bound I'm good faith
not to discriminate in their favor Admitting. tn,
sake Of argument that the above assertion cor
rect it could only have referred to the understanding
between the British government and the representative
Of the executive branch Of our own government whit
conducted the negotiations; but Mr.. President unde
the Constitution the President of the United State
possess the exclusive treaty making power
but shares it with the Senate In fairness therefore
when we consider this point the intent OF the senat
when il ratified the treaty should be taken into
and it is the practically unanimous testimon
Of those who then members Of that body that
the clear and definite understanding of the Sen
ate that the United States had the full right to eXemp
its coastwise vessels from the imposition of tolls with
out ncurring any imputaton Of thereby violating th
treaty"
With characteristic directness and emphasis, IN
senior Delaware Senator then referred the atere
conditions which created when. years later
the Republic of Panama eeded the United States tn
strip Of land across the Isthmus that is know
as the Canal Zone. He called attention to the undis
puted fact that from the time of cesson the Unite
States enjoyed complete sovereignty over the canal.
Under these conditions it is evident that our coast
wise vessels plying between the Atlantic and Pacih
and not touching at any foreign ports would be al
ways within American territory except when on tn
high seas, and that their status therefore would b
identical with those vessels which sail from one Al
antie port to another, from Pacific port TO an
other" the Senator added, thus making one of nj
strongest points against the contention made by Pre-
ident Wilson his friends who are in favor of r.
peal In other words by that acquisition Of the Can
Zone hole status of the American coastwise sh,
-~cted and such ships entering the canal would be