The Wahpeton times. [volume] (Wahpeton, Richland County, Dakota [N.D.]) 1879-1919, 1914-04-09
SEN. McCUMBER
STANDS BY WILSON
In His Attitude Upon the Tolls
Question and He Gives His
Reason.
NATIONS HONOR Is AT STAKE i
Just as the President Has De-
ciared It to be, and Senate
Knows It. !.

One of Senator McCumber's
constituents out on the Missouri
slope has written him a letter
suggesting that he support an
amendment to the tolls exemption
repeal bill now pending before the
Senate. The Senator's reply is to
/ the point, and he does himself the
honor to say:
1.-The man who wants his own
word good wants the nation to
keep it's word. Now. that ex-
plains in nutshell my attitude
upon the tolls question. | spoke
against free tolls and made the
strongest argument | could "a
galnst it as a domestic policy.
showing that it was clearly a
gratuity to a legalized monopoly;
that if we should give any pref
erence whatever it should be given
to our vessels. which must COM
pete against the foreign vessels
in the carrying trade: that the
interior country. which must pay
the interest on the $500, ,0O0, 600
invested in The Panama canal.
would get no benefit whatever.
that it was merely a selfish
scheme on the part of some of the
coast cities to have the govern
ment pay out its money for their
special benefit. My arguments
have never been answered and
they cannot be answered.
Then, too. l was present when
the old Clayton-Bulwep treaty
was superseded by the Hay-Paun-
ceforte treaty. l was present ev-
cry hour that treaty was before
The Senate in executive session,
and l know and every other Sen
ator who was present at that
time. knew that the treaty was in
tended to mean Just exactly what
it said. that we should charge ev-
cry one of our vessels exactly
the same as we charged every
foreign vessel. The Senate un-
derstood it that way: the Senate
understood that Mr.. Hay and Lord
Pauncefote understood it exact
ly the same way. and the Senate
voted down an amendment to eX-
clude our coastWise vessels from
the effect of equality Of treatment.
because we did not intend at that
time to give them a preference.
Under the Clayton-Bulwer treaty,
neither Great Britain or the Uni
ted States could have owned a
controlling interest in canal.
Each country entered into an a.
sreement of that kind. that it
might be protected against the
other.
I'm 1900 we asked Great Brit
ain to enter into a new agreG-
ment. whereby we were to be re-
leased from our obligation not to
own a controlling interest in the
canal. Great Britain acceded To
the request for further consid-
Grafton. We entered into a new
contract. which said that. while il
should release the United States
from it's obligation not to control
a canal across the Isthmus of
Panama. the government Of Great
Britain should not be released
from that obligation. and. in con-
sideration that Great Britain
should not be allowed to CON
struct canal across the Isthmus
in competition with any one We
might construct. we agreed that
we would treat all the vessels of
the world exactly the same as we
treated our own. 1t was a valu-
able concession on the part OF
Great Britain and we made what
l regard as a mighty little con-
ceSSlOn for SO valuable a priv
ilege.
Every other nation in the
world Understood this exactly the
same as Mr.. Hay and Lord Paun-
cefote. and the Senate understood
| it.
There are Just two honorable
ways for this country to proceed
in this matter. either keep its
word or else call for new con-
vention under which it may be re-
lieved from keeping it's word.
with this view you can easily
see why | could not support M,
amendment Of the kind sugges ted
bv you: | appreciate in doing
that. that I am not taking the
popular side, for the reason that
the public do not know what this
agreement is. and the press OF
the country does not nlace the
real issue before them.
"These are the views that took
when the tolls question was before
the Senate two years ago"
LADIES. ATTENTION.!
The program for the Fourth
niSfpicf Fodopot;on 80 lXyo,~.,,