their character, shall be taken into account in fixing the amount of the tolls."

66

if the effect of the method chosen for granting such subsidy would be to impose upon British or other foreign shipping an unfair share of the burden of the upkeep of the canal," the United States would not have a right to grant such a subsidy.

This language means we not only have no right to exempt any of our vessels, not even our warships, or government transports, from the payment of the same tolls that the ships of all other nations may be required to pay, but that in addition thereto we are to be limited in the collection of tolls to such amount as may be sufficient for the "upkeep" of the canal, and this "upkeep" is defined to be "interest on the capital expended in the construction and the cost of operation and maintenance."

What margin of profit will be allowed, and how much we will be permitted to expend for operation and maintenance are not stated.

Neither does he allow us in the program he thus lays down to set aside anything for a sinking fund, with which to retire the four hundred millions of bonds our Government has issued.

When it is remembered that the tolls collected for passing through the Suez Canal, which cost only one-fourth of what this canal has cost us, are much higher than the tolls prescribed for the use of our canal, and when it is further remembered that the only limitation found in the treaty upon the amount of tolls to be fixed is that they shall be "just and reasonable," this kind of language amounts to a species of effrontery that it would be difficult to exaggerate.

It forecasts all kinds of trouble, annoyance, vexation and exasperation with respect to the maintenance, operation and use of our canal, if, instead of rebuking it, we complacently yield, for he plainly states that "all vessels passing through the canal, whatever their flag, or their character, shall be taken into account in fixing the amount of tolls." This means that every United States battleship must be counted, every Government transport must be counted, every other American ship must be counted, and the amount of tolls collected therefrom shall be the subject of an accounting, which Great Britain will have a right to supervise, and take exception to at her pleasure, and that if any subsidies are paid, they, too, shall be reported, examined and passed upon, lest perchance she be required to pay more than her share.

The dispatches from Washington tell us of the expenditure of many thousands of dollars in support of a propaganda started by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace to help secure the repeal of the Exemption Act in the interest of international peace. This is an even greater blunder than the policy of "watchful waiting." Both alike may postpone, but neither can permanently prevent a rightful settlement. Neither policy secures peace; both threaten war-men will not submit to injustice; neither will nations.

Later, April 22, 1914, I elaborated all these points in a statement I made before the Committee on Interoceanic

Canal of the United States Senate. In my opinion the abandonment of our right to discriminate in favor of our own ships using the canal was an inexcusable surrender of an American right, for which we shall suffer, are already suffering, serious injury and embarrassment. It is another blunder added to a persistent long continued narrow and un-American policy of refusing necessary help on account of which the European war found us without a merchant marine. In consequence although we have a great surplus of non-contraband products for which other countries are making unusual demand and are willing to pay unusual prices, yet we have no ships of our own in which to carry them to market. We are, therefore, learning the value of American shipping at a cost of hundreds of millions to the American people-many times more in amount than all the ship subsidies proposed since the beginning of the Government.

It is to be hoped that the lesson will be sufficient to teach us to supply our needs in this respect; and that the wrong that has been committed will soon be undone by reclaiming our own and using it as the men who provided for the canal intended it should be used.

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

1902-1903

THE PHILIPPINE TREASON AND SEDITION ACT-AUTHORSHIP OF SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST LAW-THE CHINESE EXCLUSION BILL-DEFENSE OF GOVERNOR TAFTJOINT STATEHOOD-THE PHILIPPINE TARIFF-THE SECESSION OF PANAMA.

EBRUARY 6th, 1902, the Secretary of War, in response to a Resolution calling for the same, sent to the Senate a copy of what was called the Philippine Treason and Sedition Act. When it was read from the Secretary's desk, Mr. Hoar, addressing the Senate, said:

If I understood that correctly, a wife, knowing of what is alleged to be the treason of a husband, or a husband knowing what is alleged to be the treason of a wife, or a mother knowing what is alleged to be the treason of a son, or a son knowing the treason of a mother, and so on, of the son and the father and the brother—the person knowing that and not acting as an informer to the government is, under a law imposed by the authority of the United States, to be punished by seven years' imprisonment. I should like to know whether that is true.

The Senator had reference to the following section of the Act mentioned:

Section 2. Every person, owing allegiance to the United States or the government of the Philippine Islands, and having knowledge of any treason against them, or either of them, who conceals, and does not as soon as may be disclose and make known the same to the provincial governor in the province in which he resides or to the civil governor of the islands or to some judge of a court of record, is guilty of misprision of treason, and shall be imprisoned not more than seven years and be fined not more than $1,000.

When the Secretary had concluded re-reading the statute, in answer to Senator Hoar's inquiry, I sent to the Secretary's desk and caused to be read the revised statutes of the

United States on the same subject, one of which sections read as follows:

Section 5338. Every person owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, who conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some Judge of the United States, or to the Governor, or to some Judge or Justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason, and shall be imprisoned not more than seven years and fined not more than $1,000.

A general debate followed, participated in by a number of the Senators, with the result that it was made quite clear that our Commissioners in the Philippines, in enacting the legislation complained of, were but following our own statute and applying to the Filipinos precisely what our fathers had from the beginning of our government applied to the people of the United States.

Senator Hoar was quite sensitive over the matter. He disliked exceedingly to have to admit that for thirty years or more he had been a member of one House or the other of the Congress of the United States, with such a provision of law all the while in force, and during all that period had not discovered there was any necessity for repealing, altering or amending it.

seem

Always, until this encounter, he had been exceedingly friendly in his relations with me. After this he did not so cordial in his manner. The trouble was cleared up, however, in a very accidental and somewhat amusing way three or four months afterward. The Congress had adjourned for the summer vacation and I had occasion to be in New York. I was stopping at the Fifth Avenue Hotel. I had retired rather early and was sound asleep when I was awakened by hearing some one walking in my room, in which there was no light. At once that awful sensation came over me that there was a burglar in the room. I listened intently and there was no mistake. I could hear him distinctly as he, with evident purpose as I supposed, to make as little noise as possible, seemed to be

carefully making his way toward the dresser that stood against the wall about the middle of the room. Presently he turned on the light. To my great surprise and my great relief I recognized Senator Hoar as the supposed burglar. About the same instant I recognized him he looked toward the bed and recognized me. Explanations followed to the

effect that he had arrived at the hotel from his home in Massachusetts a few minutes before he appeared in my room. He registered and was assigned to a room on the next floor above and immediately over mine. After he had gone to his room he recalled that he had written a letter on the train which he desired to mail, and left his room and went below for that purpose. Returning, he left the elevator on my floor instead of his. He said the thing that bothered him somewhat was that he had left his light burning, yet he felt so confident he was in his own room that he accounted for that by supposing that in some accidental way it had been turned off.

I was quite surprised to think I had retired without locking my door; a most unusual thing for me to do.

The whole incident was so ludicrous and at the same time so humorous that it served to efface whatever of disagreeable feeling he might have toward me, and from that time on he was as friendly as formerly until we had another clash over the secession of Panama.

I did not at any time have the slightest ill-feeling toward him. He was a man of exalted character who enjoyed to the fullest extent the respect and esteem of all his colleagues without regard to political differences. He had, however, reached that stage where he was at times a little bit fussy, and on that account prone to treat with impatience, if not with petulance, any positive dissent from the views he might advocate. He had also come to the point where it was easy for him to think mistakenly that he was not fully appreciated and that others were given credit to which he was entitled.