Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (April 1, 1914)
"JkT! The Commoner VOL. 14, NO. 4 10 i! F r v. was being made by our coastwise shipowners until congress undertook to provide for the civil government of the canal and fix the tolls to be paid by vessels passing through it. "Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it would be highly dishonorable on our part to contend for a construction of the treaty which, if contended for at the time, would have prevented the mak ing of the treaty, nor do I think that we, in honor and good conscience, have any rights under the Hay-Pauncefote treaty that England would not have had had she constructed the canal under that treaty instead of ourselves. Now, does it stand to reason that if England was in our shoes that we would admit that the terms of that treaty would permit England to send the vessels of its citizens through the canal free of charge whenever engaged in commerce exclusive ly between Great Britain and her numerous coldnies, while demanding a toll charge for all vessels of citizens of the United States engaged in the coastwise traffic? Why should not nations as-well as individuals be governed by the Golden Rule? But, for the sake of argument, let it be admitted that under the terms of the Hay Pauncefote treaty we can pass our coastw'se vessels through the canal without charge; would lUnot bq a foolish and unwise policy for us to do so in the face of the charge and belief by all other nations of the world that such action was unfair and discriminatory to all other users of the canal? How are we to build up our foreign tra'det if we at the same time so demean our Belves toward them as to give them just cause to complain that we are a selfish and greedy nation; tnat we are a driver of hard bargains; that we arb "harrow, illiberal, and plcayunish? Much of tne: foreign commerce of the world is so situated as to make the Suez and the Panama canals com petitors. Now, why should we give our own nforiopolistic coastwise shipping a free service ttfrbugh the canal over the protests of all other nations when no such a course is pursued with reference to the Suez canal, the policy of which Is largely dominated by Great Britain, and espe cially when our treaty provides that the rules of the Suez canal, as to conditions and charges of traffic, shall be the rules of the Panama canal? Does it not stand to Teason that in such portions ofthe world where other nations may use either of these canals they will prefer Suez to Panama? "Mr Speaker, there is a much greater portion of the commerce of the world that by reason of natural conditions on equal tolV charge and equal treatment will go through the Suez canal; but with the discriminating, unjust,' and preferen tial treatment shown by ' the United States to the owners of vessels in the coastwise trade, will it noi tend to cause the nations of the world to prefer the Suez canal to even a greater degree than they otherwise would? "Mr. Speaker, I can not bring myself to any other conclusion than that our policy is short sighted and on the whole very injurious to our country in its efforts to build up our foreign commerce. Even though thero should bo no question as to our right under the treaty to pur sue' such a course, a legal right to do a moral wrong does not make it wise to do such a wrong. "Mr. Speaker, is it reasonable to suppose that the great masses of the people are going to be lieve that the president of the United States, who has direct charge of the enforcement of all our treaties with foreign countries, is going to sur render the rights of the American people, whose trusted: representative he is, by accepting an erroueoua construction of a treaty upon the un warranted demand of any one or all the foreign nations of the world? Would not any president thi& "country has ever had or ever will have hesi tate long before being guilty of such cowardly and treasonable conduct toward the citizens of his own country? And yet such is the charge that is being made every day against President Wilson, and it is humiliating and mortifying to know that members of his own party are guilty of making this charge. For one, I do not believe it, and 1f -I did-1 would feel that I was a moral coward if I did not immediately ask for his im peachment by the house of representatives If our' president is as bad a man as these charges would make him, no self-respecting member of the house so believing can ever again cross the threshold of the White House even to pay his respects to the present president of the United States, for certainly, Mr. Speaker, up man worthy of a seat in this house could have any respect for President Wilson while entertaining such an opinion of him. "Mr. Speaker, the perpetuity of our institu tions depends upon the confidence in. and respect for the agencies'of our government, selected by the people to do their will, and whenever the people of the United States lose confidence in the honor and integrity of public officials our form of government will be immediately abolished. "Mr. Speaker, it is being charged and stoutly maintained that to pass this bill is to violate the democratic platform of 1912 exempting Ameri can ships engaged in coastwise trade from the payment of canal tolls. That such a paragraph appears in the platform all must admit. This paragraph is part of the declaration of the party as to its position on the proper method of build ing up an American merchant mar'ne. The major premise or leading and dominating para graph with regard to the merchant marine is as follows: " 'We believe in fostering, by constitutional regulation of commerce, the growth of a mer chant marine, wh'ch shall develop and strengthen the commercial ties which bind us to our sister republics of the south, but without imposing ad ditional burdens upon the people and without bounties or subsidies from the public treasury.' "So it must appear that it is impossible to carry out the purposes of the exemption para graph without rendering nugatory the dominat ing and controlling preceding part of the plat form prohibiting the use of bounties or sub sidies fropi the public treasury for the fostering of a merchant marine. In construing an instru ment every part of it must be considered, and especially with regard to conflicting clauses or paragraphs in the same instrument, and in all such cases the ent're context of the instrument must be examined and a fair and reasonable con struction placed upon every paragraph, as the same may or may not agree with the entire in strument, and especially so with reference to the context bearing upon a special subject matter of the instrument in which the conflicting para graphs are found. The toll-exemption provision is a minor paragraph of that part of the platform giving expression to the democratic position as to the means to be used in building up our mer chant marine, and the exemption paragraph being subsequent to the major or controlling paragraph can not be accepted as of greater we'ght or as of equal weight with the major or controlling paragraph by which everysubsequent provision in the- platform muBt be determined. "In aid of arriving at a proper construction' of the exemption paragraph much light is shed upon the question under consideration ny refer ence to the party's position on the subject of a merchant iriarine in the platforms of 1904 and 190S. In the platform of 190'4 we find the fol lowing paragraph: " 'We favor the upbuilding of a merchant marine, without new or additional burdens upon the people and without bounties from the treas ury. "In the platform of 1908, upon the merchant marine we find the following plank: " 'Wo believe in theupbuilding of the Ameri can merchant marine without new or additional' burdens upon the people and without bounties from the public treasury.' "So, Mr. Speaker, in construing the exemption clause by the democratic platforms of 1904 and t iL? ? Well,as 1912e fina that'any attempt to build up the merchant marine by imnosinc new or additional burdens upon the people or by the use of bounties: or subsidies from the pubic treasury is positively, unequivocally, and absolutely prohibited. Therefore, if the toll-exemption clause adds to the burdens of the peo- ?newh JS e,dfi,Cally, in violation of the platform in which it is found, as-ell as the two preced tag Platforms which ij have just read The maintenance and upkeep of the canal, and the operation of the same, must either be paidfo? out of the. public treasury or collected ih the way of tolls from those! who use the canal There is no sort of contention that any tol charges that will not be prohibitive on all' vessels going through the canal, Including those-in the coastwise trade, will afford a sufficient fund to pay the current expenses and charges incident to .".enance and operation of the cana?, its sanitation, and defense for many years to con 1 and thkt there will necessarily fallMpon the peol Pie a burden to the extent of -the deficit thar will be required for the' purposes just expressed in he. way qf public taxation, which bSden is fflj; frLT be largeiy au fap be put in practice withSut being in direct con flf ' lth the prohibitions and inhibitions sue oifically provided lor in our three last nnnl Platforms. -It seems to me, Uv" Spe"Z there can not be a particle of doubt that the free-tolls clause found in the platform of 19 12 is in direct conflict with and renders nugatory the preceding specific limitations upon the meth ods to be used in building up a merchant marine in our present and two preceding platforms. "But, Mr. Speaker, who is to decide as to the proper construction of apparently conflicting paragraphs of our party platform? As to the construction and meaning of our national plat form, the president of the United States is the court of last resort, and his decision on such questions is final and unreviewable, and in this sense is infallible. No other position is tenable. "If every member of a political party is at liberty for himself apd of himself to determine what each clause or paragraph of p. platform means, with no higher authority to pass on the correctness of his views, what is your platform worth? Who is the highest political authority to whom an appeal can be taken until another national convention meets and a new platform is adopted? The president of tne United States is now the highest authority upon his party platform's construction, however much he may be mistaken in his construction. fany of you believe the supreme court of the United States has been mistaken, and that the supreme courts of your qwn states have been mistaken But the law-abiding citizens of all-countries obey and comply with the law as determined by their respective supreme courts. That court may con sist, possibly, of a single man Qn .questions of party doctrine our president is. supreme, being the court of last resort; and if we have a right to turn him down, we may refuse to obey the laws of the state or nation as , interpreted by the supreme court of the United States it we. differ with the court. , "Now, does anybody believe? tha.the president of tlie United States has not as much interest in the proper construction of our platform as any other living man? He is charged in part with responsibility for legislation' to carry it out in the interest of the whole country, -and yet gentle men are heard to say that we. are surrendering to. a foreign. country, and' thatWe-are repudiat- ' ing a plank in. the platform.,1n,ldoing'so. - '"Why this'cbhtiohY-'y ttfis'MeteViiiiha tion liere to destroy this1 adminls'tlbV'Wap"-' pealing to prejudiced pOliticalMhfeVest?7' On 'the other- side are two 'political'" leaders'; 'one in : charge of the stahdpat republi6an party and its interests, and' the other in-charge of an offshoot of that party known as the progressive party. "It has been contended that this matter slifatild go to The Hague. Everyone knows now the con,- , struction .that .we place upon the treaty. 'Almost eveiy man who has written a word in opposition to tolls has claimed that The Hague court could have no jurisdiction. They contend that' the question of national hono'i can not be submitted to the court, but some of dur.opiiouents are be ginning to think that the right is on our- side and are willing to go to The Ha'gue' court. " " ?wJwa8 this illegitimate free-tolls 'plank born? Who is its father?' How did it get in there? Show me a single state that sent dele gates to that convention thaf'gave any instruc tion as to this question one way or another, btate conventions were as silent as the grave. Not a particle of discussion was had before the national convention. I venture to say there were not 50 delegates in the national convention who knew it was in there or that it was contemplated to have such- a plank in our platform. It was no more in response to tin demand of the peo ple of the several states. than it was the voice of England hersejf. ' ;'" "In. whose .interest was this done;?' The -coastwise shipowners, who, are largely;, the Railroads on both coasts, but more especially on, the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, are tlie only " bene ficiaries, . ' ' r "In the same act we provided 'tht' no '"railroad company could operate a ship or vessel anywhere on any waterway in competition with itself. The nn HaHS f UIlt11 JUlV ' 14, t make application to the interstate' commerce commis si! ?uth2 purPSG of avowing that the' vessels owned by them were not competing with them selves. I wrote to the interstate' commerce com- ' mission to let me know how many applications mZl 2, and hl What railro4 s they were made and the number of vessels, owned by each Slfl0TfWns; The reply. covrs alout 15 E' " ia t0. lonS to read, but? it practically ? ?n ni -entiro coastwise. shipping interests. ' 1 VS ? le 8aiU(? as an aPPendix to my remarks. ttw- u Pr0pose t wretak (m 'administration : with a program of antitrust legislation not yet carried out. The report made rtcehtly by Judge 4 -d.z?AJZr-ui.J