Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1914-05-19
Ysulg Tiles 10 Defend Vote
!, CONTAINED Nron: RAGE one.)

the honesty OF my position upon thu
Panama canal tolls repeal bill. Il
has without foundation in fact, justifi
cation or excuse. insinuated that j
was influenced by the shipping trust
1t, isamy desire at all times to be
courteous. and fair to opponents al
we'll IS friends, and l shall endeavol
to use language tempered with mod
Grafton.
Nevertheless, the Bis2narck Trib
une has made a cowardly insinuatior
that my vote was influenced by ship
ping trust. Knowing that 90 per cent
Of the railroad companies who have
maintained a lobby will permit trust
controlled by them to maintain lob
by opposing them.h. The fact is there
has been only one lobby in connection
with this legislation, that of the rail
roads, and they have been foxy en-
ough 10 start the cry that the ship
ping trust was seeking to Influence
legislation. !. has been done with the
idea Of fooling the public, and it may
have succeeded to a certain extent
but I rather think in the long run
the people will catch on to the met
DDS used to cloud and obscure the real
purposes CT the railroad companies
maintaining lobby down here against
free tolls and then financed another
lobby upon the part of their own off
spring to oppose them. This shipping
trust has simply permitted itself to be
played up to the people by its own
ers, the railroad companies, as de-
coy to fool those who pay the freight
y; Byrne's Testimony.
This condition Of affairs is we'll II
Illustrated by the sWcrn testimony 0t
Timonthy E. Byrnes, former vice
president of the New Haven railroad
who testified this week before the In
ter-state Commerce commission. He
made oath that the sum of $1,000 paid
by the Four Rivers Shipping company
to Clarence w: Deknight Of Washing:
ton for services in connection with the
Panama legislation in reality came
from the treasury of the New York,
New Haven and Hartford railroad.
Interpretation Of Treaty.
1t was the belief of many of us in
the house that from the economic
standpoint all ships passing through
the canal should be required to pay
tolls, but as Great Britain had de.
manded the repeal Of the free tolls
provision respecting coastwise or dom.
este shipping, claiming that 1t was
a violation.of the Hay.Pauncefote
treaty, we believed that if in response
to that demand the tolls, provision
were repealed it would amount to an
Acknowledgement that. the English in
depreciation Of the treaty was correct,
and which would later interfere with
our orderly and proper contol of the
canal in other respects. It would be a
surrender Of American rights, without
even so much as requiring the ques-
ton to, be arbitrated. We believed
that the treaty rights of the United
States should be safe-guarded and that
the free tolls provision should not be
repealed at so great an expense as
the REIMBURSEMENT of those rights. We
were Of the opinion that as the peo-
ple's directors voting in respect to a
great public enterprise which had cost
many lives and the huge sum of four
hundred million dollars it was out
duty to protect American rights in the
canal, and that we ought not to pass
the bill without amendment, that it
would be folly to do SO.
y In Favor Of Bill.
Under the special rule amendments
were net permitted but one of the
members from Rhode Island, Dem
ocrat, made motion to recommit the
bill with instructions to add to it an
amendment for the purpose of safe
guarding the treaty rights Of the Uni
tel States. / was in favor of the bill
with such an amendment and voted
that way, but the word having gone
forth shat the bill was to be passed
without change the motion to recon-
nit was lost. Consequently voted
"No" on the final roll call. That was
the thing to do, and l would vote the
same way again if the question were
to come up in the same form if it were
my last act on earth.
Whit Has Happened.
What has happened since? The SEN
ate committee, after having made a
searching inquiry and after having
studied it thoroughly, reported to the
senate recommending that the Pana-
ma canal bill be amended by adding
the following:
"That neither the passage of this
act, nor anything therein contained,
shall be construed or held as waiv-
ing, impairing, or affecting any treaty
or other right possessed by the
limited States