Evening star., 1914-04-14
Former Ambassador White
Tells of Canal Treaty Me-
uotiations With England.
DECLARES EXEMPTION
WAS NEVER INTENDED
Believed United States Ships Should
Pay as All 0thers-Prof. john
son Also Before Committee.


United States ambassador to France and
Italy. and at the time of the negotiations
leading I'D to the Hay-Pauncefote treaty
secretary of embassy in London. told the
committee plainly that it had been his
understanding and the understanding OF
the other nesotiators that all American
ships should be accorded the same treat
ment in passing through the Panama
canal as those of other nations
In other words if tolls were to be
ebarced foreign vessels, American vessels
should pay similar tolls Mr.. Whtte SAID
that Joseph ChOate, the American am
bassador to Great Britain at that time.
and Lord Salisbury. also. SO Tar a.
known. had the same understanding OF
the matter.
Thinks Exemption Mistake.
Prof. Emory r Johnson of the Cniver-
sitv of Pennsylvania a member OF the
isthr1ian canal commission in 1899, and IN
1911 employed by President Taft to frame
and recommend a schedule of tolls for
vessels passing through the canal, was
a so before the committee. He declared
that from an economic standpoilt -
world be a mistake to exempt the AHleri
..,r coastwise vessels from the pay ment
of tolls through the canal He discussed
ouI the economic side of the controversy.
MIR. White said that the negotiations
for a treaty with Great Britain regard :
inr the construction of the isthmian ca
nal To supersede the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty. had opened in 1898. John Hay,
Secretary of state. had sent him dis
patch December Z of that year lnstruct-
ing him to take the matter up with Great
Britain He conferred with Lord Sauls-
hurry and on December 90 replied to Mr.
Hay Mr. White said that in his formal
conferences with Lord Salisbury it had
been his understanding that the ships OF
all nations including the United states.
were to be treated alike.
No Hint at Free Tolls.
There was no suggestion said Mr.
White. that the coastwise vessels OF
The United States should be exempted
from the payment of tolls. or treated
in any way different from other vessels.
The question, in fact, never arose and
was never discussed. I am sure thai
the understanding was all ships of all
nations should be treated alike LORD
Salisbury insisted upon this, and l SO
cabled to Mr.. Hay"
Senator bGorrnan. chairman of the
committee. asked Mr.. White if he did
not know that Great Britain had mace
an agreement with the United States in
1915 providing that the same treat.
ment should be accorded the ships OF
both nations in the ports OF Great Isst
Great Britain for fifty years after the
agreement was made had favored her
c6astwise vessels over Americans ves-
sells.
II have heard of it," replied Mr.. White,
but I have no personal knowledge of
the matter"
o'Gorman's Suggestion.
Senator O'Gorrnan suggested that as
British coastwise vessels had not been
included in the meaning of the treaty of
isis the American coastwise ships had
not been included within the meaning
- the Hay-Pauncefote treaty ratified in
'coi.
Mr. White said that he did not consider
himself an authority on international law
and that he was not a lawyer. and that
he did not wish to comment upon such
n question
IN reply to a question by Senator
Thouas Mr.. White said that he had not
heard or thought of DISTINGUISHING Amer
lean coastwiSe vessels from other YES
sells passing through the canal until an
amendment WAS offered in the Senate by
Senator Bard. That was beaten. he said,
and there was no stir about 1t at the
time.
Asks for Explanation.
an explanation from Mr.. White as to
why it was necessary for this country to
make the Clayton-Bulwer treaty with
Great Britain. and why Great Britain
was entitled to claim joint dominion with
this country over an isthmian canal.
Mr. White replied that he had always
understood We were compelled by circum-
stances to agree to such a treaty with
Great Britain. Senator O'Gorman de
clared that the negotiation and ratitica-
ton of that treaty had been criticised as
a "cowardly act.
Prof johnson told the committee that
there were two matters to be considered
in the economic side of the controversy
over tolls. First. whether the canal
was to be a source Of revenue TO the
United States. and. second, whether the
general public or the owners of coast
Wise vessels would reap the profit from
the exemption of tolls
Cost of Maintenance.
Prof Johnson gave the commit
tee figures which would show that
the maintenance of the canal would
cost the government annually s1e.260.-
O9D without counting the military ex-
perses in connection with it. He said
that Col. Goethals had estimated that
II would cost another SIO.pD,0pU an
BuaIiy for the military expenses in con-
yc-tion with the canal. Mr.. johnson
advocated the collection of tolls with a
.-ic,y 20 making the canal self-sustain-
in- .vcntually-
Educator Is Heard.
Pre-" : s. iiuebner of the University
o. P,uns, lvaIiia. employed by the House
NJ. ,,.i-.f and marine committee to in
VesIi:saic shipping conditions. before
the ,.liiuittee yesterday afternoon. He
expressed belief THAT the tolls question
vouII have little b-aripg freight
rates. shipping conferences. he said
would charge ''ail the traffic would
EeaIs. sttd if tolls We're remitted the ship
owners and not consumers would bene-
fiji. lis assertion that the Panama
railroad ships, owned and operated by
the government. were in one Of these
conference agreements aroused interest
in the committee.
Prof. Huehner expressed no opinion on
fite repeaI issue combining himself fo the