Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-04-10
1900 Strong Take Possession OF City of Augusta

| has not waived e.. | should believe in
giving way. repeating the law and suf-
| fering the consequences. | believe in
keeping a contract even IL it be a
| harsh che. But great many things
/ should lie taken into consideration be-
sides the naked construction Of those
words. l voted with the bulk of the
/ Republicans against the large major
! ity OF Democrats mainly for the fol-
] lowing reasons;
Settled Two Years Ago.
| First: The question was settled and
/ the principle Of our complete control
! established two years ago. when all
present arguments were considered.
/ with eminent authority on our side,
and no additional reasons are given
/ for tho proposed change OF front.
! President Taft in his message of
August Is. 1912. written after receipt
of tho first formal British protest
/ against tolls exemption, after the pas
sage of the bill by the House OF Rep
resentatives, said:
After full examination OF the
| treaty ana of the treaty which pre-
ceded it, / feel confident that the ex-
emption OF the coastwise vessels of
/ the United States from tolls and the
imposition OF tolls on vessels OF all
nations engaged in the foreign trade
is not a violation of the Hay
Pauncefote treaty.
The following is taken from the
views of President Roosevelt, as pub
| lished in the Washington Post:
u believe that the position OF the
United States tas TO the Panama Ca
| nab is proper es regards this coast
wise traffic. think that this does
not interfere with the rights OF any
other nation. No shirs but our own
can engage in coastwise traffic. SO
that there Is no discrimination against
other ships when we relieve the co st
wise traffic from to..s. | believe that
the only damage taat would be done
is to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
We are beneStag the Whole
world by our action a. Panama,
where every dollar OF expense is paid
by ourselves. In all history / do not
believe YOU can find sucn great and
expensive work as tie Panama Canal,
undertaken rot by a pri' ate corpo-
ration. but by a nation. as gene ousy
put at the service OF al manAind.
The same position was taken by
former Secretary of State Knox, for
mer Secretary of State Richard Oiney,
Chandler p. Anderson, former CoGn-
selor of the Department of state. and
also many other great authorities and
this view was concurred in by ma
jority of the Congress.
The London Law Review is a great
English authority on legal questions.
When this question was under con-
sideration before it said;
..{a) That the United States can
support its action-that is. providing
for exemption for the coastwise YES
sais-ou the precise words of the ma
terial articles of the treaty: that its
case is strengthened by reference to
,y,1fi fnxsf nj
its case is difficult to challenge on
ground OF general justices;
"(h) There is no international obi
cation 10 submit the construction of
its legislative act to any process OF
arbitration; and
''(cl That any aggrieved party has
an appropriate and impartial and
competent tribunal in the supreme
Court OF the United states"
1t evidently had the support Of
President Wilson in 1912 for he made
many speeches advocating free tolls
for our coastwise shipping.
Why Are We Asked to Turn Baok7
When a great question of this kind
is once adjudieated by US the pre-
sumption is that it is settled. What
reason does the President advance
why a member of Congress, who has
convictions and who voted for free
tolls two years ago should change his
mind? Not one that can be called
reason. He says that the opinions of
all foreign nations are against us; that
in dase of doubt about the meaning of
the contract 1t should be construed in
favor of the other party. and finally
that unless this is done for him he
won't know what to do about certain
foreign complications not named.
AS for me, it makes no difference
whether foreign nations agree with us
or not. However. if that fact
is entitled to any weight, throw
it into the scales with the other
opinions on that side. Will
speak of that later. That when there
is doubt about the meaning of con-
tract (and treaty is a contracD it
should be decided in favor OF the 9TH
er party l do not subscribe il. If that
is good doctrine why not apply it to
the other party? Why not let Great
Britain yield to our contention? She
has no decision OF her Parliament to
reverse and would be giving up no
sovereignty. If this is going to be
race to see who can be most generous
and the most careful of the others
feelings, why not step aside and give
Great Britain the first chance?
That a failure to reverse our action
will embarrass the President and his
Secretary of State in the conduct of
some of their foreign relations would.
I admit have weight with me, as
patriotic American. IL I were sure
that there was a crisis or situation
dangerous or important enough to
warrant it. OF course there might be
situation desperate enough to just
ify our giving up territory-ceding
the State of Maine to Japan, or add
ing New York to the Dominion of
Canada; but we would have to be
shown the reason and necessity and
there are quite a lot of men now here
who would not be here or anywhere
else when that came about. / for
one will have to shown what the COM
plication is and be satisfied of its
gravity before I will change my vote.
Note the words of the Hon. Champ
Clark, Speaker of the House, in speak
ing of the request of the President.
OH Mr.