The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1914-07-10
SENATOR STONE CONSIDERED
PANAMA TOLLS EXEMPTIONS
BoUNTlEs TO @oNJ7oLIEs.
SUPPORTED REPEAL BILL
Asserts American Rights Under Canal
Treaties, but Strongly Opposes
Substituting American Coast
wise Vessels.

lent ) supporters III d"uNOCdltlB Nle lNPVdl
dill. In setting forth his reasons Tor ms
position, Senator StOne said:
In 1912, Congress passed what Is
Known as the Panama Canal AdmInlstra-
lion Act. The general purpose OF .hls
act was to regulate the Operation OF TINS
International waterway. The act con-
tanned a provision excmpting American
oastwise vessels from the payment u
tolls for passing through the canal.
While this measure Was pending before
Congress in 1912, the government OF
Great Britain protested to our State De.
EaItment that the exemption OF Ameri-
ships from the payment OF TOYS,
while charging tolls against the vessels
Of other nations, would be viOiauVe OF
our treaty obligations Great brlt4ln
commended that under the so-called Hay
PauncefotO treaty, contracted between
the United States and Great Britain, this
government could not grant preferential
or discriminatory rates to American SHIPS
without violating our international agree
ment The question was then very thor-
oughly debated in Congress, some hold
ing that the British contention was well
founded, while others maintained thar
the United states had a clear right under
the treaty to grant loHeT tolls to Amerl-
can vessels than might be required OF
other vessels, OF 10 entirely exempt
American vessels from the payment OF
any tolls whatsoever. a decided MAORI
ty I'm both Houses adopted the latter
view, and accordingly enacted the law. on
1912, containing the provision eXempting
u coastwise shipping from the pay
ment Of tolls. Several months ago Presi-
dent Wilson delivered a message 10 Con-
gress taking the ground that the tolls
exemption clause Of the act OF lslZ
should be repealed. He based his conten-
ton on two grounds, first, mat at:cr ma
ture reflection and thorough study OF The
whole question he had reached the op,n-
ion hat the exemption was VlolduNe OF
our treaty with Great Britain, and,' sec
oud, that the exemption was In Itself a
wrong economic policy and in c~ontraVen-
ton Of the general policy Of TINS country
with respect to granting subsidies 10 the
merchant marine. This subject provoked
a long and somewhat heated discussion
in Congress. IN the tariff and currency
bills the Democrats In both Houses were
united. but on the tolls question the
Democrats in both Houses, as well as
the Republicans and ProgressiVes, were
divided. In fact, II was not regarded OF
treated as a party question. A majority
in both Houses voted to repeal the SO
called free tolls provision Of the law, but
those who voted for repeal were not all
Influenced by the same considerations
Some voted for repeal solely because
they believed that the exemption law was
ViOlatiVe Of our solemn international
agreement, and not because they were
opposed to the idea of granting ship sub
sides out Of the public treasury. Others
voted for repeal solely ecaus they were
opposed to allowing coastwlse shipping
absolute freedom from all charges tul
using the canal, believing that that wa
a subsidy, and they were opposed to th'
policy of substituting ships. Others votet
for repeal on both the grounds stated by
the President, that the exemption violat'
ed the treaty and was also vicious as al
economic policy. Personally, ] did not be
lieVe IL violated our treaty with Great
Britain to exempt American ships from
canal tolls, but ! am clear in the BELIEF
that to exempt ships from the payment
OF tolls Is the exact equivalent OF coll
leoting and then r%efunding the tolls, or
in other words, that the exemption from
tolls was nothing more MOI less than q
subsidy granted at the public expense
l have always opposed substituting IN!
merchant marine or any part OF II, ant
that has long been the consistent ana
we'll established doctrine Of the Demo
cratic party. II has been so declared u
various national platforms.
Question Of Domestic Policy.
Those who voted against repeating th'
free tolls provision Of the Law maintained
with great vigor and insistence that IN,
exemption was not NiUlative Of our treaty
obligations, n that II did not grant
subsidy such as the DemoeCAuc party de
nounced. This was not a party question il
1912 nor in 1914, for On both occasions
when II was before Congress each Sen.
ator and Member acted outAide II part!
lines and voted In accordance with nil
own convictions. | voted for the act o
1912, 1t went hard against the grain foI
me TO vote at tina time to exempt on
coastwise vessels from the payment o
tolls, because / have regarded the ex'
emptiOn as nothing short Of An absolute
subsidy 10 that part Of our merchan
vessels doing a coastwiSe business, anG
which part ! regard as standing least II
need Of public aid and least deserving U
ii. ! then thought, as l have always
thought. hat II the government shoul,
be Inclined 70 grant ship subsidies II al
"a policy that do not favor-the Elbsi
dies had better be granted 10 ships II
the overseas traffic than to vessels en-.
gagged in the coastwise traffic, becaus'
under our unwlse navigation laws Ameri,
can coastwi8e vessels enjoy an absolute
monopoly Of the m and profitable
business upon which they are engaged
Nevertheless, ! voted for the act OF 1912
permitting this subsidy, because at tina
time there was an acute Issue tetweel
the United States and Great Britain
based on the then pending British pro
test that the United States was withou
right under the treaty between the w,
nations TO discriminate In favor Of do
nestle shipping az against foreign ship
ping. On the merits u the proposition
Itself ] was opposed to the exemption
but / was opposed TO II solely On tn
ground OF domestic policy. ! could no
agree that Great Britain had Lny treat!
right TO complain II the United state.
should determine 10 allow all or an!
American vessels free passage through
the canal. I considered that that vas
l was unwilling 70 concode that Grea
Britain or any other country had an!
right to object. Because Of the interna
tiOnel question involved at hat time,
voted as ] did, l regarded the interna
tional question then presented and beini
urged by. . foreign government rs NOR
Important than the domestic question 0
subsidy; and ] believed that we SHOULD
first settle the International question ant
RfterWordn dispose Of the domestic 1ues
tion. have always supposed, however
that after we had answered the oohten
tion OF Great Britain. after we had givel
our Interpretation Of the treaty, and hal
taken our stand az to the relative right
Of the two countries under the treaty
that this government could thereafter
on It's motion. take whatever actiol
II pleased with respect to lie policy
! thought then. as / think o that W
could rlghtfuny deny the claim Of Grea
Britain 10 have any voice with respec
70 our domestic policy, but ] did not i'm
agine that In taking that position W
thereby forfeited or Impaired our right 4
adopt Whntever domestic policy W
pleased, o. lost the right 70 change tina
policy e anE time We pleased With 70
e~laborated my views On this snnject \
tho addraD ! made % the Senate q
Nay 3 last. While TIM hin UQs pandtnf
did not entirely agroe With the pyeai
dents Whole contention, but foy ,he rea
snns | have stated heartily supporte.
the Bneai bD whch be had urged %
u Congress. Many o. my good friends n
the Senate, both Democrats and Republl
cans, did not concur In my views. hn
! nave no criticlain 70 make Of sheir atti