Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1914-04-10

Mr.. Alexander Sidney Lanier
Thinks Speaker Clark's Speech
On The Tolls Question Was
Buncombe and Claptrap, and
Proves That No Mistake Was
Made In Not Nominating Him
For The Presidency.
(From Baltimore Sum-
To the Editor of the Sun-Sir
| doubt If there ever came before
the Congress of the United
States question of equal i'm
portance that has received as
little intelligent discussion as ev-
idenced in the recent debate in
the House onethe repeal of that |
provision of the Panama Canal
act exempting our coastwise yes
sells from the payment of tolls.
The speech of Spe akcr Clark has
been proclaimed by those oppos-
ed to repeal as very great
speech. | have read it with the
utmost care. 1t sheds not a ray
of light upon the economic and
legal merits of the question, but,
on the contrary, may, think,
be characterized with propriety
as nothing but "buncombe" and
"claptrap," totally devoid of eff
feet beyond satis flying the Amer
lean public that no mistake was
made in nominating Mr.. Clark
for the Presidency, and the now
comforting assurance that there
is no probability that he will ever
be President.
The toll controversy presents
two questions, viz. first, whether
the exemption of our coastwise
vessels from the payment of tolls
would be in violation of the Hay
Pauncefote treaty, and second,
conceding that it is not, is such
exemption a wise economic poll
cy. Irrespective OF the aforesaid
treaty, believe such exemption
to be wrong in principle, and an
unwise economic policy a; that the
exemption provision should never
have been passed and that it
should now be repealed for those
reasons. Il have made a pro-
found and, l trust, impartial
study of the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty, together with all other
treaties and negotiations in con-
nection Herewith, and my own
conclusion is that the aforesaid
exemption is not in violation of
the treaty, although l conceded
it to be doubtful question and
one upon which able and sincere
men may honestly differ. l,
therefore, believe that the ques-
ton of our rights under the
treaty should either have been
submitted to arbitration or tested
in suit before the Supreme
Court of the United States in the
manner suggested by President
Taft in his memorandum accom-
panying his approval of the Pan
ANA Canal act.
Reverting,- however. to the &C
ton of those Democrats who
voted against repeal, practically
all of them based their action OH
and sought to justify it by the
fact that the Baltimore platform
of their party contained a decla-
ration in favor of such exemp-
ton.
They cannot justify their vote
with the people on this ground
alone, but in addition they must
prove to the satisfaction of the
American public that the exemL-
ton of our coastwise vessels from
tolls is not only not in violation
of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty but
that it is also sound economic
policy.
The declarations of party plat
forms are not to be lightly re-
garded, and when they do not
run counter to the Constitution
of the United States and our
treaties made in pursuance there
Of every demand of honor ard
good faith requires that they
should be observed inviolate.
1t cannot be presumed that the
of the United States
commissioned an individual or a
party to violate the fundamental
!. .. NJ the land or our treaty OBJ 4
igations simply because the plat
;orm upon which they are elect
. , 70 Office contains declaration !;
: violation of both. To hold
his would convict the American 6
eople of folly and dishonor and :
- Of our nation a pariah : :
-. the nations of the earth,