Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1914-03-28
Senator Met umber on Canal Tolls

i
!, Senator McCumber has written letter to of
his Missouri Slope constituents who suggested to
him an amendment to the canal tolls bill now before
congress, which puts the matter in a new light, anc
one that thinking people in interior states will ap
prove. Here it is: " ,,:a
The man who wants his own word good wants
the nation to keep its word Now, that explains in
nutshell my attitude upon the tolls question. spoke
against free tolls and made the strongest argument
could against it domestic policy, showing that
It was early gratnity to legalized monopoy that
II We should give any preference whatever It shoulc
be given to vessels, which must compete against
the foreign vessels in the carrying trade; that the
interior country which must pay the interest on the
$500 100000 invested in the Panama canal would get
no benefit whatever. that it merely q; selfsi
scheme on the part of some of the coast cities to
have the government pay out its money for their
special benefit. My arguments have never been ans
swered and they cannot be answered. .g s4%
Then, too, was present when the old Clayton
Bulwer treaty superseded by the Hay Panncefote
treaty. was present at every hour that traty was
before the Senate in executive session, and know
and every other Senator who was present at that
time knew that the treaty was intended to mean
just exactly what it said, that should charge every
one Of our vessels exactly the same as we charged
every foreign vessel The Senate understood It that
way; the Senate understood that Mr.. Hay and Lord
Pauncefote understood 1t exactly that same way ana
the Senate voted down an amendment to exclude our
coastwise vessels from the effect of equality of treat
nent because did not intend at that time to give
them preference. Under the Cayton-Bulwer treaty,
neither Great Britain nor the United States could
have owned a controlling interest in a canal Each
country entered into agreeemnt Of that kind that
might be protected against the other In 1900 we
asked Great Britain to enter into new agreement,
whereby we were to be released from our obligation
not to own controlling interest in the canal Great
Britain acceded to the request further consider
alton: We entered into a new contract which said
that while should release the United States from
its obligation not to control canal across the 18TH.
mus of Panama. the government of Great Britain
should not be released from that obligation, and in
consideration that Great Britain should not be allow
ed to construct canal the Isthmus in compe
tHon with any one we might construct, we agreed
that we would treat all the vessels of the world ex.
acty the same as we treated our own 1t was vau.
able concession on the part of Great Britain and we
made what regard as mighty little concession for
50 valuable privilege
Every other nation in the world understood this
exactly the same Mr.. Hay and Lord Pauncefote.
and the Senate understood it.
Ihere are Just two valuable ways for this country
to proceed IN this matter, either keep its word or
else call for new convention under which It NAV be
relieved from keeping its word
.S With this view You can easily see why could
not support an amendment of the kind suggested by
you appreciate in doing that, that am not taking
the popular side, for the reason that the public do
not know what this agreement u.s. and the press of
the country does not place the real issue before them
~ These are the views that I took when the tolls
question was before the Senate two years ago."