General C. S. Warren of Butte, Montana, wrote:

I loved him as though he were my own son. I have never been associated with a man who possessed the manly virtues to the extent that he did. He was honorable, upright, fair and square to every human being whom he came in contact with.

Benson was a universal favorite with everybody who knew him in this country, and all express sympathy for you and yours in your bereavement. Every member of my own family feels as though we had lost one of our own.

President Alston Ellis of Ohio University, at Athens, O., of which Benson was for years a Trustee, wrote:

I regret more than words can express, the loss the Ohio University has sustained in the untimely death of your son. The announcement of his death, which came to us in newspaper report, was indeed a shock to his friends in Athens, although it was known here, pretty generally, that his health was impaired.

Had the funeral been public, and had notice of the same been received in time, Board members would have been selected to represent the University. No notice of any kind was received, save that which was reported in the press.

In behalf of my fellow-members of the Board of Trustees, I send you and your wife, in their name, sincere expressions of sympathy in the bereavement that has come to you in the death of your son.

As a Trustee of Ohio University, he made a creditable record, gained the esteem of all his fellows, and left vacant a place that will be hard to fill.

Joseph Wilby, Esquire, one of the attorneys of the Cincinnati Traction Company, wrote:

It was my good fortune to have known him well in recent years. He was one of the most lovable men of my acquaintance; a fine man and a good friend.

Mr. Clarence Price, formerly of Cincinnati, but now of New York, wrote:

All who knew him loved him and grieve with you in your great loss.

The Honorable George P. Waldorf of Toledo, Ohio, wrote:

His lovable nature was so well appreciated by everyone who came into contact with him, from his youth up, that his untimely demise will cause a pang of regret to a host of friends.

The Honorable James A. Green, one of the leading business men of Cincinnati, said:

I remember Benson since he was a boy of ten years old. Have always known and appreciated his great ability. He was equipped for tremendous things, and his early death is only another one of the mysteries that are beyond us.

Mr. Ralph A. Holterhoff wrote from Fortress Monroe, Virginia:

Your son's cordial manner and cheery optimism attracted and held a multitude of those who were proud to have been known as his friends, and who will cherish his memory as an intimate and enduring personality.

And so I might go on with scores of other similar communications, all of the same general character, and all from leading citizens in their respective communities, but I have given place to enough to show that the warm tributes to his abilities, his lovable nature, and his general high character published in the newspapers were shared by all who knew him. That much is due him and that is sufficient.

ON

CHAPTER XXXVII.

THE PANAMA CANAL TREATIES.

NE of the most impressive object lessons of the SpanishAmerican war was given when the Oregon, stationed on the Pacific Coast, was needed on the Atlantic Coast to help resist Cervera's fleet, and found it necessary to sail 10,000 miles around Cape Horn to join her sister ships of the navy.

It started a fresh discussion in favor of an Isthmian Canal. This discussion resulted in the negotiation of a treaty known as the first Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, which was sent to the Senate by President McKinley, February 5, 1900. This treaty was not satisfactory to the Senate. It was amended in two or three respects with a view to making it so, but the British Government refused to accept these amendments. Subsequently a second Hay-Pauncefote Treaty was negotiated substantially in harmony with the first Treaty as amended.

The second Hay-Pauncefote Treaty was ratified by both Governments, and under it, and under contemporaneous legislation on the subject, the Canal was constructed and put into operation by the United States.

When it was nearing completion a question arose as to our right to fortify; and after its construction was completed and it was put into operation a more serious question arose as to whether we had a right in the use of that canal to discriminate in favor of American ships.

I was a member of the Foreign Relations Committee at the time when the two Hay-Pauncefote Treaties were negotiated and participated in the discussion of both of them in the Committee, and also in the Senate.

As to the question of our right to fortify I fully expressed my views and stated the facts of which I had personal knowledge on which those views were based in a letter to President Taft, of which the following is a copy:

Dear Mr. President:

CINCINNATI, O., January 2nd, 1911.

In view of the controversy that is going on in the public press and elsewhere and otherwise with respect to the right of the United States to fortify the Panama Canal, I take the liberty of sending you the following for what it may be worth, if worth anything at all.

The first Hay-Pauncefote treaty was sent to the Senate by President McKinley February 5, 1900. It was ratified by the Senate with certain amendments, one, the following offered by Senator Davis, namely:

"It is agreed, however, that none of the immediately foregoing conditions and stipulations in Sections numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this article shall apply to measures which the United States may find it necessary to take for securing by its own forces the defense of the United States and the maintenance of public order."

A second amendment adopted by the Senate was the insertion in Article II after the words "Clayton-Bulwer convention" the following: "which convention is hereby superseded." I offered this amendment; but as I offered it I used the word "terminated," for which the word "superseded" was substituted on the motion, or rather on the suggestion of Senator Spooner. I remember asking him what difference he thought there was in the legal effect of the two words that he should prefer "superseded" to "terminated." He said he thought in legal effect there was no difference, but that he thought "superseded" was a “softer" word. Thereupon I accepted "superseded" for "terminated" and in that form the amendment was adopted, first by the Committee on Foreign Relations and then by the Senate.

A third amendment was made in the same way on my motion to strike out the whole of the third article of the treaty, which read as follows:

"The high contracting parties will, immediately upon the exchange of the ratifications of this convention, bring it to the notice of the other powers and invite them to adhere to it."

Confirmation of these statements is found in the leading editorial of the Literary Digest for December 22, 1900, where it is stated that:

"The temper of the Senate was first made evident by its adoption of the Davis amendment (passed by a vote of 65 to 17) permitting 'measures which the United States may find it necessary to take for securing, by its own forces, the defense of the United States and the maintenance of public order.' Two other amendments were proposed by Senator Foraker, and accepted by the Committee on Foreign Relations, the first declaring that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty is 'hereby superseded,' and the other eliminating Article III,

which provided that the other powers should be invited to adhere to the treaty."

This treaty thus amended was ratified by the Senate December 20, 1900, but the British Government rejected it.

During the time the treaty was pending and under discussion in the Senate there was a good deal of criticism of Mr. Hay in some of the newspapers, because of the provision of the treaty against fortifying the canal. After the Senate amended the treaty and particularly after the British Government rejected it in its amended form this criticism became more general, and on the part of many papers was very harsh and severe. Mr. Hay felt these criticisms keenly. They greatly morti

fied him.

At this time he came, one Sunday morning, to my residence on Sixteenth street. He seemed distressed and discouraged. He brought with him a letter he had received from Lord Lansdowne, which he asked me to read. It was a letter indicating that it would not be worth while to make an effort to negotiate another canal treaty unless we would make it a sort of omnibus affair in which should be incorporated provisions for the settlement of all the then unsettled controversies pending between the United States and Canada. Mr. Hay regarded such a treaty impossible and thought it barred further progress with respect to the canal, for the time being at least.

We drifted into a general discussion of the whole subject.

Having participated in the consideration of the former treaty I knew what the feeling was in the Senate, and that it would be idle to undertake to secure the ratification of any treaty that flatly prohibited fortification by the United States, or involved us in any obligation to consult and secure the consent or co-operation of any government as proposed in Article III of the former treaty. The first treaty had been ratified by the Senate only because Senator Davis's amendment was regarded as practically nullifying the provision against fortifications, and because the other amendments cut us loose from the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and exempted us from all requirements to consult or co-operate with other nations. So far as fortifying was concerned, the Davis amendment was regarded as leaving that whole matter practically speaking at the option of the United States. Finally I told him I thought the Senate would ratify a treaty in substantial accordance with the old treaty with the following exceptions or changes:

First. Supersede the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.

Second. Strike out the whole of Article III.

Third. Strike out the provision of Section 7, Article II, prohibiting fortifications. This would remove the objections of the Senate.

Fourth. Strike out Senator Davis's amendment, which had been adopted as the offset of the anti-fortifications clause, which would remove the chief objection of the British government.

Fifth. Transpose the following provision:

"The United States, however, shall be at liberty to maintain such military police along the canal as may be necessary to protect it against lawlessness and disorder,"