742 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 14,

E. Lee in Statuary Hall, Capitol building, Washington, D. C.-to the Committee on the Library.

By Mr. IDTT: Resolution of the Baltimore Chamber of Com­merce, in favor of consular reform-to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Also, resolution of Holden Putman Post, No. 64.6, Grand Army of the Republic, of Shannon, Til.; William H. Thompson Post, No. 308, Grand Army of the Republic, of Paw Paw, ill.; John L. Hos­tetter Post, No. 785, Grand Army of the Republic, of Chadwick, lll., and Amboy Post, No 572, Grand Army of the Republic, of Amboy, ill., in favor of a service-pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. KALANIANAOLE: Resolution of the Chamber of Commerce of Honolulu, Hawaii, against passage of Senate bill 289-to the Committee on the Territories.

Also, petition of the Bar Association of Honolulu, Hawaii: ask­ing increase of justices for supreme court from three to five-to the Committee on the Territories.

By Mr. LACEY: Resolution of Gene1-al Wlison Post, No. 4.32, Grand Army of the Republic, of Kellogg, Iowa, in favor of a serv­ice~pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. LITTLE: Paper to accompany bill H. R. 9594, fo:r the relief of William A~ Denton-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. LITTLEFIELD: Resolution of Bememan Post, No. 79; Harry Rust Post, No. 54, and William K. Kimball Post, No. 14.8, Grand Army of the Republic, Department of Maine; and Twenty­third Regiment Association, of Maine, in favor of a service-pen­sion bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. McCLEARY of Minnesota: Resolutions of La Grange Post, No. 97, Grand Army of the Republic, of Windom, Minn., and of Stephen l\filler Post, No. 139, Grand A:rmy of the Repub­lic, of Woodstock, Minn., in favor of a service-pension law-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. PADGETT: Papers to accompany bill H. R. 1150, for the relief of Hiram Lodge, No.7, Free and Accepted Masons, of Franklin, Te11.n.-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. PAYNE: Petition of business men and citizens of P~nn Yan, N.Y., in opposition to parcels-post bill-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

By Mr. PRINCE: Paper to accompany bill providing for a pub­lic building at Kewanee, Henry County, ill.-to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds.

Also, resolution of the Retail Merchants' Association, Geneseo, m, against passage of a parcels-post bill-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

Also, resolution ofT. T. Dow Post, No. 290, GrandA:rmy of the Republic, Department, of illinois, in favor of a service-pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, protest of Knights of Maccabees of Galesburg, ill., against passage of Dryden bill-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads.

By Mr. RAINEY: Petition of business people of Beardstown, ill. against passage of a parcels-post bill-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Post-Roads .

.Also, resolution of Downing Post, No. 321, Grand Army of the Republic, of Virginia, lll., in fa.-vor of a service-pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. RICHARDSON of Alabama: Papers to accompany bill for the relief of the Primitive Baptist Church, of Huntsville, Ala.-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. RIDER: Petition of Charles Houghton, in favor of the construction of the Harlem Kill section of the Harlem Ship Canal-to the Committee on Rivera and Harbors.

.Also, resolution of the New York Preachers' Meeting, in rela­tion to the treatment of naval chaplains-to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

By Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas: Papers to accompany claim of John Lacotts-to the Committee on War Claims.

By Mr. RUPPERT: Resolutions adopted by the board of man­agers of theN ew York Produce Exchange, favoring the deepening of the Harlem (Bronx) Kills to 18 feet-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. .

Also, resolutions of the Philadelphia Maritime Exchange, favor­ing arbitration treaties between the United States and foreign countries-to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Also, resolutions adopted by representatives of grain exchanges, declaring against Government inspection of grain at te1'Dlinal markets-to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

By Mr. RYAN: Resolution of the New York Board of Trade and Transportation, favoring passage of bill to improve the Bronx Kills, New York-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

Also, resolutions of the Paint, Oil, and Varnish Club of New York, protesting against trade-mark patent laws of Cuba-to the Committee on Patents. '

By Mr. SHERMAN: PapextoaccompanybillH. R.84lO,grant-

ing an increase Qf pension to George B. Fair head-to the Com-mittee on Invalid Pensions. _

By Mr. SULLIVAN of New York: Resolution of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in opposition to bill H. R. 3573-to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Also, resolution of the executive committee of the Supervisors' Highway Convention, in favor of the Brownlow bill, relating to road improvement-to the Committee on Agriculture.

Also, resolution of the Paint, Oil, and Varnish Club of New York, in relation to trade-marks, patents, labels, etc.-to the Com­mittee on Patents.

Also, resolution of-the New York Preachers' Meeting, in rela­tion to the treatment of naval chaplains-to the Committee on Naval Affairs.

Also, resolution of the Grai:ll Dealers' National Association, in relation to the inspection of grain at term:inal markets-to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

Also, resolution of the Manufacturers' Association of New York, favoring the improvement of the harbor channels of the Brooklyn water front-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors.

By Mr. SPERRY: Resolution of the New Haven and Coast­wise Lumber Dealers' Association, in favor of a bill to establish a foTest reserve in the White Mountains-to the Committee on Agriculture. ·

By Mr. REID: Resolution of the Board of Trade of Little Rock, Ark., relative to the improvement of the Mississippi River-to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors. .

By Mr. SULZER: Resolutions adopted by representatives of grain exchanges, declaring against Government inspection of grain at terminal markets-to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.

Also, resolutions favoring arbitration treaties between the United States and foreign countries-to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Also, resolution of New York Produce Exchange, favoring pas­sage of bill to improve ihe Bronx Kills, New York-to the Com: mittee on Rivers and Harbors. .

By Mr. TOWNSEND: Resolutions of Concord Post, No. 239; Scott Post, No. 4.3; Lucius Taylor Post, No. 274., and Morgan Parker Post, No. 281, Grand Army of the Republic, Department of Michigan, in favor of a service-pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

By Mr. WACHTER: Resolutions of Dushane Post. No.3, and of Guys Post, No. 16, Grand Army of the Republic, of Baltimore, Md., favoring the passage of a service-pension law-to the Com­mittee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, resolution of Baltimol'e Federation of Labor. in opposition to Senate bill providing for the payment of advanced wages in the coastwise trade-to the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fishel'ies.

Also, petition of Woman's Christian Temperance Union, Ea ton, Md., for passage of bill to forbid nullification of State liquor laws; also, from same organization, petition in favor of a bill to forbid the sale of intoxicating liquors in buildings owned or used by the United States Government-to the Committee on Alcoholic Liq-uor Traffic. -

By Mr. WADE: Resolutions of Shelby Norman Post. No. 231, and Henry Seibert Post, No. 250, Grand Army of the Republic, Department of Iowa, in favor of a service-pension bill-to the Committee on Invalid Pensions.

Also, petition of Claus Groth Gilde, of Davenport, Iowa, pro­testing against passage of Hepburn bill relating to interstate liquor traffic-to the Committee on the Judiciary .

By Mr. WARNER: Petition of citizens of Urbana, lll., protest­ing against the passage of the parcels-post bill-to the Committee on the Post-Office and Pos~ Roads.

SENATE. THURSDAY, January 14, 190-'f.

Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. EDwARD EVERETT HALE. The Secretary proceeded to read the J oumal of ye te1·day's pro­

ceedings, when, on request of Mr. BURROWS, and by unanimous consent, the further reading was dispensed with.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Journal will stand ap­proved.

RENTAL OF BUILDINGS. The PRESIDENT pro-tempore laid before the Senate a com­

munication from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting, in re­sponse to a resolution of the 17th ultimo, a statement concerning buildings and quarters rented by the Navy Department in the District of Columbia and the States and Territories; which was referred to the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, and ordered to be printed.

.

1904. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 743 LA.BOR TROUBLES IN COLORADO.

Mr. SCOTT. The memorial I presented yesterday from the mine owners of Colorado was not signed. I am authorized to have it signed by C. C. Hamlin, secretary of the Mine Owners and Operators' Association of Colorado. I ask unanimous consent that it may be so signed.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Vir­ginia asks that a correction may be made; that the paper pre­sented by him and ordered to be printed in the RECORD and also as a Senate document may receive the signature of the secretary of the Mine Owners and Operators' Association of Colorado. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

:MESS.A.GE FROM THE llOUSE. A message from the Honse of Representatives, by Mr. W. J.

BROWNr.·a, its Chief Clerk, announced that the Honse had passed a bill (H. R. G804) providing for the appointment of a customs appraiser at Pittsburg, Pa.; in which it requested the concur­rence of the Senate.

ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED. The message also announced that the Speaker of the Honse had

signed the em·olled bill (S. 2300) to supplement and amend an act entitled "An act to authorize the construction of a bridge across the :Mississippi River at or near Grays Point, Mo," approved Jan­uary 26, 1001; and it was thereupon signed by the President pro tempore.

PETITIONS AND MEJ.IORIALS.

Mr. BURROWS presented a petition of Phil Kearny Post, No. 7, Department of Michigan, Grand Army of the Republic, of Muskegon, Mich., praying for the enactment of a service-pension law; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. SCOTT presented a petition of Philippi Post, No. 106, De­partment of West Virginia, Grand Army of the Republic, of West Virginia, praying for the enactment of a service-pension law; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. FOSTER of Washington presented a memorial of the Sailors' Union of the Pacific of Aberdeen, Wash., remonstrating against the enactment of legislation relative to the payment of allotment in the coast-wise trade; which was referred to the Com­mittee on Commerce.

He also presented a petition of the Spokane Lumbermen's As­sociation and the Western Pine Shippers' Association, of Spokane, Wash., praying for the enactment of legislation to enlarge the powers of tile Interstate Commerce Commission; which was re­ferred to the Committee on Interstate Commerce.

Mr. TALIAFERRO presented a petition of General Harney Post,No.1G, Department ofFl01ida, GrandArmyofthoRcpublic, of Sanford, Fla., praying for the enactment of a service-pension law; which was referred to the Committee on Pensions.

:M:r. CULLOM presented petitions of Stark Post, No. 700, of Bellflower; of John Thompson Post, No. 748, of Caseyville; of Luke Mayfield Post, No. 516, of Girard; of A. J. Smith Post, No. 779, of H3Jllla City; of Mcilwain Post, No. 273, of Vandalia; of Joseph Shaw Post, No. 235, of Annapolis; of Canlterville Post. No. 239, of Canlterclle; of Amboy Post, No. 572, of Amboy: of Viola Post, No. 440, of Viola; of West Salem Post, No. 22:?, of West Salem; of Brown Culley Post, No. 571,ofThebes; of Colonel Ellsworth Post. No. 669, of Columbus; of A. C. Harding Post, No. 127, of Roseville; of N. B. Buford Post, No. 246, of Piasa; of Jacob Fry Post, No. 193, of Roodhouse; of Cooling Post, No. 316, of Byron; of William H. Thompson Post, No. 308, of Pawpaw: of Holder Putman Post. No. 646. of Shannon; of Burrell Post, No. 744. of Plainfield: of General T. W. Sweeny Post, No. 275, of Bar­rington; of David Hill Post, No. 532. of Elizabeth; of Cllarleston Post, No. 271, of Charleston; of McKane Smythe Post, No. 673, of Brownstown; of Ed Kitchell Post, No. 159, of Elliottstown: of .Anna Post, No. 548, of Anna; of Sedgwick Post, No. 305, of Gard­ner; of Samuel McAdams Post, No. 497, of Sorento; of J. J. An­derson Post, No. 488, of Wayne City; of Colonel Raith Post, No. 587, of O'Fallon; of Tom Smith Post, No. 345, of Metropolis; of Burden Post, No. 494, of Charmahon; of Simeon Walker Post, No. G29, of .Richview; of S. H. Saunders Post, No. 393, of Arcola; of Gilman Post, No. 186, of Gilman; of Charles A. Clark Post, No. 184, of Ridgefarm; of W. S. Hancock Post, No. 560, of Chicago, and of Nauvoo Post, No. 207, of Nauvoo, all of tho Department of illinois, Grand Army of the Republic, in the State of illinois, praying for the enactment of a service-pension law; which; were referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr . .ALGER presented a petition of James n. Steadman Post, No. 198, Department of Michigan, Grand Army of the Republic, and a petition of Milton Williams Post, No. 304, Department of Michigan, Grand Army of the Republic, in the State of Michigan, praying for tho enactment of a service-pension law; which were referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. GALLINGER presented a petition of the New Hampshire

Anti-Saloon League, of Concord, N. H., praying for the enact­ment of legislation to prevent the giving of tax-receipt stamps for the sale of intoxicating liquor in prohibition States, etc.; whicll was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

He also presented a petition of the New Hampshire Anti-Saloon League, of Concord, N.H., and the petition of J. M. Durrell of Dover, N.H., praying for the enactment of legislation to re~u­late the interstate transportation of intoxicating liquors; whlch were referred to the Committee on Interstate Commerce.

Mr. BEVERIDGE presented a petition of the Anti-Saloon League o! Ladoga, I~d., a~d a petition of the congregations of the Baptist, Methodist Ep1scopal, and Presbyterian clmrches of Goodland, Ind., praying for the enactment of legislation to regu­late the interstate transportation of intoxicating lique>rs; which were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

He also presented a petition of the congregations of the Metho­dist Episcopal, Memorial Presbyterian, and Christian churches all of Rockville, in the State of Indiana, praying for an investiga~ tion of the charges made and filed against Hon. Rmm S)IOOT, a Senator from the State of Utah; which was referred to the Com­mittee on Privileges and Elections.

Mr. PROCTOR presented a petition of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union of Northfield, Vt., praying for the enactment of legislation to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors in all Government buildings and also to regulate the interstate trans­portation of intoxicating liquors; which was referreJ to the Com­mittee on the Judiciary.

He also presented a petition of the Chittenden Com: tv Woman· s Christian Temperan.ce l!nion, of Burlingt.on, Yt .. !·raying for t~e ena~tme~t o~ le~latwn to r~gulate the mterstate transporta­tiOn of mto:ncatmg liquors; which was referred to t!le Commit­tee on the Judiciary.

Mr. DRYDEN presented a petition of the Amelican Lead Pen­cil Company, of Hoboken, N. J., praying for the enactment of legislation providing for the annexation of Santo Domingo to the United States; which was refen:ed to the Committee on Foreiau Relations.

0

He also presented petitions of the congregations of the First Presbyterian, :Methodist Episcopal, First Baptist, and West Bap­tist churches, all of Vineland, in the State of New Jersey, pray­ing for the enactment of legislation to regulate the interstate transportation of intoxicating liquors; which were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

He also presented petitions of the Woman's Christian Temper· ance Union of Morristown; of the Young Men's Christian Asso­ciation of Madison; of the Woman's Foreign Missionary Society of Beverly; of the congregation of the Presbyterian Church of Beverly; of the Paragraph Club of Beverly; of the Woman's Home Missionary Society of Beverly; of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union of Beverly; of the congregation of the Wesley Methodist Episcopal Church, of Pleasantville; of the St. John"s Methodist Protestant Church, of Pleasantville; of the congrega­tion of the First Presbyterian Church of Pleasantville; of the con­gregation of tho Bapfut ~urch ~f Pleasantville; of the congre­gation 6f the Salem Methodist Ep1scopal Church, of Pleasantville and of the Ladies' Auxiliary of Lincoln Post, No. 11, Department of New Jersey, Grand Army of the Republic, of Newark, all in the State of New Jersey, praying for an investigation of the charges made and filed againstHon. REED SMOOT, a Senator from tho State of Utah; which were referred totlle Committee on Privi­leges and Elections.

Mr. LONG presented a memorial of the hoard of directors of the Western Retail Implement and Vehicle Dealers' Association, of Abilene, Kans., remonstrating against the ena.ctment of legis­lation relative to the suppression of fraudulent insurance com­panies; which was referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Post-Roads.

He also presented petitions of tb.e Woman's Christian Temper­ance Union of Pratt County, of the Woman's Christian Temper­ance Union of Winfield, of the Jl.Iinisterial Union of Newton. and of the congregation of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Glen­elder, all in tho State of Kansas, praying for an investigation of the charges made and filed against Hon. REED SMOOT, a Senator from the State of Utah; which were referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

He also presented petitions of sundry citizens of Alden, Horton, Stockton, and Windom, all in the State of Kansas, praying for the enactment of legislation to regulate the interstate transporta­tion of intoxicating liquors; which were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. NELSON presented petitions of Levi Whitney Post. No. 29, of Appleton; of M. L. Deveraux Post, No. 43, of Janesville. and of Stephen Miller Post, No. 139, of Woodstock, all of the Depart­ment of :Minnesota, Grand Army of the Republic, in the State of :Minnesota, praying for the enactment of a service-pension law; which were referred to the Committee on Pensions.

744 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 14,

He also presented a memorial of the Sailors' Union of the Pa­cific, remonstrating against the enactment of legislation relative to the payment of allotment in the coastwise trade; which was re­ferred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. ELKINS presented a memorial of the Bay and River Steam­boatmens' Union of San Francisco, Cal., and a memorial of the Sailors' Union of the Pa<:ific of San Francisco Cal. remonstrat­ing against the enactment of legislation relative to'the payment of allotment in the coastwise trade; which were referred to the Committee on Commerce.

He also presented a petition of Bailey Post, No. 4, Department of West Virginia, Grand Army of the Republic, of Huntington, W.Va., and a petition of Kendall Post, No. 36, Department. of West Virginia, Grand Army of the Republic, of West Virginia, praying for the enactment of a service-pension law; which were refened to the Committee on Pensions.

1\Ir. PENROSE presented petitions of sundry citizens of River­side, Los Angeles, Vacaville, Pomona, Villa Park, Covina Santa Barbara, Fresno, Gilroy, and Plaquemine, all in the State ~f Cali­fornia, praying- for the passage of the so-called parcels-post bill· which were referred to the Committee on Post-Offices and Pos~ Roads.

He also presented petitions of the Woman's Christian Temper­ance Union of Media; of the congregations of the Reformed Episcopal and Grace United Episcopal churches. of Lancaster; of the Ladies' Foreign Mis ionary Society of 11Iiff:linburg; of the \yoma~'s Christian Temperance Union of Salem; of the Metho­dist Ep1scopal Sunday School of Fortyfort; of the Home Mission­ary Society of Fortyfort; of the Civic Club of Harrisburg; of the congregation of the Christian Church of Fortyfort; of theW oman's Christian Temperance Union of Equinunk; of the congregation of the United Presbyterian Church of New Bedford; of the congre­g-ation of the Central Presbyterian Church, of Newcastle; of the United Presbyterian Church of Neshannock; of the First United Presbyterian Church of New Wilmington; of the congregation of the L:ntheran Church of Newcastle; of the congregation of the First Baptist Church of Newcastle; of the congregation of the United Presbyterian Church of Camp Run; of the congregation of the Presbyterian Church of Westfield; of the congregation of the United Presbyterian Church of Oak Grove: of the congregation of the Third United Presbyterian Church of Newcastle; of the congregation of the Presbyterian Church of Rich Hill; of the con­gregation of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Newcastle; of the congregation of the Second Presbyterian Church of Newcastle; of the congregation of the Park Christian Church, of Newcastle; of the congregation of the United Presbyterian Church of Bethel; of the congregation of the Methodist Episcopal Church of New­castle, and of the congregation of Mahoningtown Presbyterian Churc~, of ~ew?astle, all in the State of Pennsylvania, praying fo1· an mvest1gat10n of the charges made and filed against Hon. REED SMOOT, a Senator from the State of Utah; which were referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Mr. FRYE presented a memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of Tucson, Ariz., remonstrating against the union of Arizona and New l\Ie.xico as one State; which was referred to the Committee on Territories.

He also presented a petition of sundry citizens of Clima, Me., and a petition of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union of Lisbon, Ohio, praying for an investigation of the charges made and filed against Hon. REED SMOOT, a Senator from the State of Utah; which were referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

STATE CLAIMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT. 1\Ir. PETTUS. From the Committee on Military Affairs I re­

port back with an amendment the bill (S. 1343) to amend an act app::.·oved March 3.1899, entitled "An act to amend an act entitled 'An act to reimburse the governors of States and Territories for expenses incurred by them in aiding the United States to raise and organize, and supply and equip the Volunteer Army of the UniU>d States in the existing war with Spain.' approved July 8, 18~ , ''etc., and for other purposes; and I submit a report thereon.

I ask leave to say that this bill is the same in substance as one which was passed by the Senate in the last Congress.

Congress authorized the payment to tho States of certain ex­penses incurred by them during the Spanish war. Some States neglected to make presentation. Other States made presentation in part only. Then there was .a conflict of ruling in the Audi­tor's office of the Treasury Department. There was a limitation on the act. The only effect of this proposed act as it is now pre­sented is to extenn the limitation until1906, and also to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to review his rulings or the rulings in his Department in reference to these claims.

I ask for the present consideration of the bill. Tho Secretary read the bill: and by unanimous consent the

Senate. as in Committee of the Whole, proceeded to its considera­tion. The first section proposes to amend section 6 of the act ap-

proved March 3, 1899, by striking therefrom the words" nineteen hundred and two '' and inserting in H.eu thereof the words '' nine­teen hundred and six;" so that tbt. ~!lme shall read:

SEa. 6. That all claims for reimbursoment under this act or the act ap­proved July 8,1898. shall be presented in itemized form to the Trea-sury De­partment on or before January 1, 1906, or be forever barred.

The amendment of the Committee on Military Affairs was to strike out all of section 2 and to substitute a new section 2, to read as follows:

Sxo. 2. That any claim or any item of a claim heretofore presented under t!J.e ])rovisiO:J?.S of said acts, appro':ed July 8, 1898, and March 3, 1S!J9, re~=;pec­tively, and disallowed by any Aud1tor, the Comptroller, or any other officer of the Treasury Department, shall, on application of the governor or other duly authorized officer or agent of the State or Territory made on or before the 1st day of January, 1\J06, be reopened, considered, audited, and settled anew by said officers of the Treasury Department in accordance with the provisions of said acts.

The amendment was agreed to. The bill was reported to the Senate as amended, and the amend­

ment was concurred in. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, read

the third time, and passed. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES.

Mr. ALGER. from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 968) to grant an honorable discharge from the military service to Robert C. Gregg, reported it without amendment.

Mr. BLACKBURN, from the Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2870) granting an honorable discharge to John W. Tiffany, reported it without amendment, and submitted a report thereon.

Mr. FULTON. I am directed by the Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 1501) for the relief of James F. :Mcindoe, to report it favorably without amendment, and! submit a report thereon. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HALE. Let us get through with the regular order of business first before considering any bill.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is made, and the bill goes to the Calendar.

l\1r.LODGE.from the Committee on Foreign Relations to whom y;ras referred t~e amendment submitted by himself on' the 12th mstant, p~·op?smg to appropriate $55,000 to provide at a number of the prmC1pal consulates fifty clerks, who shall be American citizens and shall receive not more than $1,200 a year in any one case, intended to be proposed to the diplomatic and consular ap­propriation bill, reported favorably thereon, and moved that it be referred to the Committee on Appropriations and printed; which was agreed to.

:Mr. CULLOM, from the Committee on Foreign Re\1.tions, reported an amenclme:at proposi!lg to appropriate $4,000 for con­sul-general at Mukden, China, and S4,000 fm.· consul at Antung, China, intended to be proposed to the diplomatic and consular appropriation bill, and moved that it be referred to the Commit­tee on Appropriations and printed; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, reported an amendment pro­posing to fix the salary of the consul at Turks Island at $1,200 per annum, intended to be proposed to the diplomatic and consular aprn·opriation bill, and moved that it be referred to the Commit­tee on Appropriations and printed; which was agreed to.

He also, from the same committee, reported an amendment pro­posing to appropriate 83,500 for consul at Dalny, China, intended to be proposed to the diplomatic and consular appropriation bill, and moved that it be referred to the Committee on Appropria­tions and printed; which was agreed to.

BILLS INTRODUCED. 11fr. MORGAN introduced a bill (S. 3410) to extend to citizens

of the United States who were owners, charterers. masters, offi­cers, and crews of certain vessels registered under the laws of the United States, and to citizens of the United States whose claims were rejected because of the American citizenship of the claim­ants. or of one or more of the owners, by the international com­miss:on appointed pursuant to the convention of February 8, 1896, between the United States and Great Britain, the relief heretofore granted to and received by British subjects in respect of damages f<?r ~mla:wful seizures of vessels or cargoes, or both, or for dam­mfym~ mter~erence with the vessels or the voyages of vessels en­gaged m sealing beyond the 3-mile limit and beyond the juri~dic­tion of the United States, in accordance with tho judgment of the fur-seal arbitration at Paris, in its award of August 10 1893 and so that justice shall not be denied to American citizens ~hich has been so f1:eely meted out to British subjects; which was read twice by its title, and referreu to the Committee on Foreign Re­lations.

Mr. ALGER introduced a bill (S. 3411) for the relief of Andrew Martin; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Com­mittee on Military Affairs.

1.

l 1 1 •

1904. CONGRESSION"'\L RECORD-SENATE.

Mr. COCKRELL introduced a bill (S. 3412) granting an increase of pension to John Crandall; which w~s read twice by its title.

Mr. COCKRELL. To accompany the bill I present the petition of John Crandall for an increase of pension, together with the nffichvits of Dr. Dayid Wise, I. Y. Byers, N. E. Wade, Bert Webb, and William H. Waters. I move that the bill and accompanying p~pers be referred to the Committee on Pensions.

The motion was agreed to. _Mr. CULBERSON" introduced a bill (S. 3413) granting a pension

to Henry P. Howard; which was read twice by its title, and re­ferred 'to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. BEVERIDGE introduced a bill (S. 3414) granting an in­crease of pension to Henry Wheeler; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. TALIAFERRO introduced the following bills; which were severally read twice by their titles, and referred to the Commit­tee on Pensions~

A bill (S. 3415) granting an increase of pension to Manluff W. Reynolds;

A bill (S. 3416) granting an increase of pension to Joseph H. Allen; and

A bill (S. 3417) granting a pension to Garrett V. Chamberlin. Mr. PROCTOR introduced a bill (S. 3418) to provide for the

payment of medical expenses of sick officers and enlisted men of the AI·my while absent from duty with leave or on furlough; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

Mr. SMOOT introduced a bill (S. 3419) to reimburse John W. Moffit for loss suffered by Indian depredation in the county of Klamath, in the State of California, in the year 1863; which was read twice by its title, and, with the accompanying papers, re­ferred to the Committee on Indian Depredations.

Mr. DEPEW introduced a bill (S. 3420) authorizing the Secre­tary of War to adjust the claim of the Merritt & Chapman Der­rick and Wrecking Company, and making an appropriation to satisfy such claim of $.237.36, or so much thereof as may be nec­essary; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Com­mittee on Claims.

He also introduced a bill (S. 3421) authorizing the Secretary of War to adjust the claim of the Merritt & Chapman Derrick and Wrecking Company, and making an appropriation of $1,800, or so much thereof as may be necessary, to satisfy such claim; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

Mr. BURROWS introduced a bill (S. 342.2)_ granting an increase of pension to Ransom M. Fillmore; which was read twice by its t!t;le, and referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. McCUMBER introduced a bill (S. 3423) granting an in­crease of pension to Joseph H. Ottey; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Pensions.

Mr. CLAPP introduced a bill (S. 34.24) to authorize the removal of structures from Indian allotments in :Minnesota; which was reacl twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Mr. SCOTT introduced a bill (S. 34.25) for the relief of the estate of James H. Hardesty, deceased; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

He also introduced a bill (S. 3426) for the relief of the estate of Henry Gannon, deceased; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

He also introduced a bill (S. 3427) to authorize the Williamson Coal Company (Incorporated) to bridge the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River near Williamson, W.Va., where the same forms the boundary line between the States of West Virginia and Ken­tnc1.--y; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

Mr. LONG introduced a bill (S. 3428) to provide for the im­provement and enlargement of the Fort Scott (Kans.) National Cemetery, and for other purposes; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on :Military Affairs.

:Mr. BERRY introduced a bill (S. 3420) for the relief of the heirs of :genjamin F. Ball, deceased; which was read twice by its title, and, with the accompanying papers, referred to the Com­mittee on Claims.

Mr. ELKINS introduced a bill (S. 3430) to authorize the Buck­hannon and Northern Railroad Company, a corporation under the laws of the State of West Virginia, to build a bridge across the Monongahela River near the town of Rivesville, in the State of West Virginia; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

He also introduced a bill (S. 3431) to amend the act of February 8, 1 97, entitled "An act to prevent the carrying of obscene liter­ature and articles designed for indecent and immoral use .from one State or Territory into another State or Territory," so as to prevent the importation and expol'tation of the same; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

He also introduced the following bills; which were severally read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Pen­sions:

A bill (S. 3432) granting an increase of pension to Rosaline V. Campbell;

A bill (S. 3433) granting a pension to Daniel :M. Yeager; A bill (S. 3434) granting a pension to Edgar Travis; and A bill (S. 3435) granting a pension to Mazilla Lester (with an

accompanying paper). :M:r. ELKINS introduced the following bills; which were sev­

erally read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Claims:

A bill (S. 3436) for the relief of Joseph Loudermilk; A bill (S. 3437) for the relief of Elijah :M:. Hart; A bill CS. 3438) for relief of Alice .M. Stafford, administratrix

of the estate of Capt. Stephen R. Stafford; and A bill (S. 3439) providing for the payment of the amounts due

the employees in and the contractors who furnished castings to the United States armory at Harpers Ferry, Va., from January 1,1861, to April19, 1861, inclusive (with an accompanying paper).

Mr. ~ENROSE introduced a bill (S. 3440) to revoke sentence and establish the military record of Capt. George G. Lovett, Company K, One hundred and eighty-seventh Regiment Penn­sylvania Volunteers, war of the rebellion of 1861 to 1865; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Military Affairs.

He also introduced tho following bills; which were severally read twice by their titles, and referred to the Committee on Pensions:

A bill (S. 3441) g~·anting a pension to Harriet Shroeter; A bill (S. 3442) granting an increase of pension to WilliamS.

Underdown; and A bill (S. 3443) granting an increase of pension to John Linn

(with accompany-ing papers). :Mr. PENROSE introduced a bill (S. 3444) for the relief of

Philip Loney; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

:Mr. CARMACK introduced a bill (S. 3445) for the relief of James Boro, Mary Boro, and the estate of James Boro, deceased; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

He also introduced a bill (S. 3446) for the relief of .Tames E. Meacham; which was read twice by its title, and, with the accom­panying papers, referred to the Pommittee on Claims.

Mr. LATIMER introduced a bill (S. 3447) for the relief of Mi­chael B. Ryan, son and administrator de bonis non of John S. Ryan, deceased, late of Charleston, S.C.; which was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Claims.

POST-OFFICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIG.ATION.

Mr. HALE. Mr. President, the various Post-Office resolutions are by order of the Senate to come up directly after the routine morning business is disposed of to-day. I had intended to take the floor for a short time upon those resolutions, and so announced yesterday. But the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. LATIMER] desires at the conclusion of the routine business to-day to submit some remarks, and he has given notice to that effect.

Other Senators have requested me not to be in the way, as they desire to debate other matters which have been before the Senate for the last day or two. I see the force of that, and while I want these resolutions out of the way, I ask that they be postponed until Monday morning, giving room for all Senators to discuss other matters, and that then they shall be taken up immediately after .the routine morning business. It gets me out of the way of other Senators who desire to speak upon other matters.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from :Maine asks unanimous consent that the various resolutions touching the Post-Office Department investigation be postponed until Monday morning immediately after the routine morning business. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and that order is made. EMPLOYMENT OF STENOGRAPIIER FOR COMMITTEE ON THE PHILIP-

PINES.

Mr. LODGE submitted the following resolution: which was re­ferred to the Committee to Audit and Control the Contingent Ex­penses of the Senate:

Resolved, That the Committee on the Philippines be authorized to employ ·a stenographer from time to time, as may be necesffiry, to report such testi­mony as may be t.'l.ken by sa.id co mini ttee and its subcommittees in connection with Senate bill2257, such stenographer to bo paid from the contingent fund of tho Senate.

REPORT ON AFFAIRS IN ALASKA.

Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. President,! should like tooccupythe Senate just about a minute to make a correction that I think ought to be made.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado. Mr. PATTERSON'. On Tuesday the junior Senator from In­

diana. [Mr. BEVERIDGE] presented the report of the subcv-mmit.tee

746 OONGl{ESSIONAL REOORD-SENATE. JANUARY 14,

appointed to visit Alaska, and in the course of his remarks he made a statement with reference to myself which is not altogether accurate. I was not here when the report was presented. I know the Senator from Indiana was in error, through mistake or inadvertence, and I simply wish to correct that error. The part of his remarks I call attention to is as follows:

I direct tho particuln.r attention of the Senn.to to the feature of this repo:r:t upon transportation, which is of immense value. Indeed every line of th1s valuable document is weighty with facts and sound judgment.

Then-The recommendations are the recommendations of the entire subcom­

mittee, with tho exception of one concerning the _Delegate, from which the junior Senator from Colorado [Mr. P .A.TTERSON] dissents.

That would create the impression that I objected to the appoint­ment of a Delegate from the district of Alaska. The only differ­ence between myself and the rest of the committee is that I belieye a Territorial form of goyernment is entirely feasible for the dis­trict of Alaska; that it should be erected into a Territory and haYe its own legislature, and as a Territory send its Delegate, so that it may be I'epTesented in Washington and on the floor of tho House.

:Mr. BEVERIDGE. Mr. President, the remarks of the junior Senator from Colorado are both accurate and appropriate. He was not here at the time I presented the report of the subcommit­tee and made my remarks upon it.

I had understood that the entire report of the subcommittee was agreed to and was the report as .to fa:cts of the whole. subcom­mittee, and that as to recommendations It was the 1manrmous re­port of the subcommittee with the singl!3 exception of the recom­mendation for a Delegate, to which I had understood the Senator from Colorado dissents. That was inaccurate in the respect the Senator states. He is not against a Delegate from the Territory, but he insists on a Territorial form of government in addition thereto.

Mr. PATTERSON. That is right. Mr. BEVERIDGE. Since hav:lng been apprised of this I have

taken the liberty, which sometimes prevails in the Senate, of amending my remarks so as to show the correct attitude of the Senator from Colorado as he privately explained it to me.

1:\TTERV:ITJI.'"TION IN COLOMBIA. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The C~air lays bef?re t~e

Senate a 1·esolution coming over from a preVIous day, which will be stated.

The SECRETARY. Senate resolution 73, by Mr. GORM.A....'f, calling upon the President for certain information touching former ne­gotiations of the United States with the Government of New Granada or Colombia, etc.

Mr. GORMAN. As I understand the Senator from South Car­olina [Mr. LATIMER] desires to address the Senate on anot~er matter this morning, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution mav go over until to-morrow morning, not losing its place.

Mr. BEVERIDGE. There was another agreement made yes­terday in regard to the resolution.

:Mr. BURTON. We can not hear the Senator from Mru:yland. Mr. GORMAN. I understand that previous notice has been

given by the junior Senator from South Carolina, who desires to address the Senate on an entirely different matter this morning.

Mr. CULLOM. I understand that; and I suppo ·e this resolu­tion will not be taken up for consideration until after the Senator frc.m South Carolina has made his speech on the other question. After that there are two or three Senators who desil'e to speak on the resolution submitted by the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. GORMAN. Very well. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Will the Senator from Mary­

land allow the Chair to make a suggestion? Mr. GORl\IAN. Certainly. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is that ~e ask ~animous

consent that the resolution may be taken up Immediately after the conclusion of the speech of the Senator from SouU: Carolina.

Mr. GORM.AN. I am glad to adopt the suggestion of the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. To that request the Chair hears no objection. '!'hat order is made.

SAFETY APPLUNCES ON R.A.ILRO.ADS.

Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. President,IdesiretomakeaninCJ_uiry. I introduced a resolution yesterday, and asked for the considera­tion of the same, calling for certain papers from the Interstate Commerce Commission. I should like to know what the status of that resolution will be.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under th~ ruling of the 9h.air made yesterday, on account of .a for~er ruli_ng of. the presiding officer of this body, the resolutiOns will retam then· place on the table until they have had one day in court.

Mr. PATTERSON. All resolutions? • 'Ihe PRESIDENT pro tempore. So the Senator's resolution will

come up whenever we get to it.

Mr. KEAN. What resolution is that? 1\fr. PATTERSON. The one the Senator spoke to me about a

little while ago. Mr. KEAN. I propose to move to refer it to the Committee on

Interstate Commerce. RO.A.DS .AND ROAD BUILDIXG.

Mr. LATIMER. I ask that the resolution which I submitted may be laid before the Senate.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the Senate a resolution, which will be read. ·

The Secretary read the resolution submitted by Mr. LATIMER on the 8th instant, as follows:

ResolvP-d1 That the Seoret,ary of A~riculture be, and he is ~ereby, directed to furnish "the Senate such information as he may hn.ve relative to th~ cost of construc:ting public roads in the United tn.tes and in foreign countrll'S. and such other information on the subject of roads and road building as may be of use in considering tho subject of highway improvement.

Mr. LATIMER. Mr. President, the question that I present to the Senate to-day is not a new one. It has agitated the minds not only of th~ common people, but of the greatest statesmen in all ages. From the earliest tii~e road bu~lding has been. among t.he first improvements that received .att~ntion from assocmted bodi~s of people. It is. not a new que~tion m our own conntr~. In this body it has received the attentiOn of many of our leadmg states.­men and I may say that with few exceptions all of them who hav~ left a record upon this subject took the position that the reve­nues of the Federal Government could not be used to better pur­pose than for the imp1·ovement of the common roads. While they did not always agree as to the power of the General Govern­ment to undertake the work, most of them thought that it should be done by the Government or under its supervision, even if a constitutional amendment were necessary.

IYJUSTICE OF PRESEYT SYSTE:II.

About one-third of our people, at the present time, bear the total responsibility and cost of the construction and improvement of the common roads. They are the people who live in the coun­try district , and. who c~nstitute the mud silll?-pon which is. built the political and mdustrial development of which we are so JUstly proud. To them, in a larger degree than to any other class of our people, we are indebted for the magnitude of the position to which we have attained along all lines. Upon them the heavy hand of taxation has fallen relentlessly. They bear the largest proportion of the burdens of government, considering their means, and receive the minimum of its benefits.

The construction and improvement of the common roads of the country, over which the necessaries of life and raw material must pass to sustain the life an<l promote the health, comfort, and prosperity of the whole people, is a burden which has reste<.l solely on the peopl~ o! the r~·al districts. . . .

Mr. President, this IS an unJust and unequal distribution of the burdens and benefits of government, and any proposed remedy should receive the earnest consideration of every patriotic citizen.

JtEASONS Il'OR NATIONAL AID.

Why should the Federal Go~ernment aid in improving the common roads?

First. Because the history of road building demonstrates that a complete system of public roadR has never been constructed in any country except by the aid of tho general governmer:t of t~at country, anrl dming the one hundi·ed yem_:s of our. national life the United States has not proven an exception to this rule.

Second. Because the revenues of the Government are raised largely upon articles consumed by all the people, thereby .distrib­l.lting taxation equally, and as all the people should contnbute to the construction and improvement of the roads, it is only by Fed­eral aid that this can be accomplished.

Third. Because it is the duty of the Fed ral Goyernment to bear its just proportion of th~ ex1:cnse for the const~uction and improvement of the roJ.ds which 1t uses for the delivery. of the mails and for military purposes in time of war, aud which are tho arteries of interstate commerce.

Fourth. Because better roads are a national necessity; they closely concern the general welfare of the nation, and are there-fore a proper object of national aid. . . . .

Fifth. Because a surplus of about $260,000,000 IS lymg Idle m the Treasury, which belongs to the people and should be expended for their be11efit in a manner which will accomplish the gr"atest good to the largest number, and because the power to borrow money at low rates of interest, if it be found necessary to supply the money in this way, enables tho General Government to un­dertake this improvement with greater advantage than the States or the people.

THE ROADS OF EUROPE.

The Romans built a system of roads which extended into every part of that Empire, with a dol}.ble purpose of. conque~t and closet union. It was from these ancient roads, which fm'111shed exam4

pies of the necessity and benefits of road ·building by the general

1904. OONGRESSION.AL RECORD-SENATE. 747 government, that the magnificent roads of Europe developed. France had no improved roads of consequence previous to the time of Napoleon the First. With the funds of the General Gov­eTnment he undertook the construction of improved roads, and since that time the Government of France has aided and fostered them, with the resnlt that they are uow pointed to as models of road building. And, undoubtedly, it is largely to their common roads that the people of that country owe their characteristic thrift and contentment.

Macaulay, writing of the condition of the public roads of Eng­land previous to 1835, says: • The fruits of the earth were sometimes suffered to rot in one place, while a few miles distant the snpplies fell short of the demand. One chief cause .of the badness of the roadS was the defective state of the law. Every parish was bound to repair the roads which passed through it, and thus a sparse and impoverished population was often compelled to maintain high..wa.ys between rich and populous towns.

When the population of England grew denser, the absolute necessity for better roads callSed Parl.ia.ment to do away with the old system and place the whole matter of road improvement under the care and direction of the General Govel"I\IIl9nt. This policy has resulted in making English roads among the finest in Europe.

The development of European roads can uot be more fittingly described than by a quotation from an article in the Engineering Magazine of August, 1891, by Isaac B. Potter, C. E.:

The Roman legacy has in late yea.r.s multiplied its value, and in nearly all of the countries of _Europe systems of high-class roads are maintained. In Ireland they add not a little to the delights of the picturesque Killarney dis­trict, and are eveTyFhere found by the tourist and traveler who visits that beautiful country. In FranceJou may drive from Pari'! to Orleans, to Bour­~es, to Nevers, and across the ura Mountains into Switzerland. Yon may JOurney through Switzerland, beholding all her marvels of scenery, and yon may continue on into Germa."lly and follow the Rhine and its valley of legends till you reach the shoals of the North Sea. You may vary this journey in wbateverway your inclination may urge; you may travel the roads of Scot­land, Italy, Austria, Belgi~ Baden Spain, or Scan_dina.via, and you will everywhere find that the public hand hiS been industriously directed to the care and keeping of the common roads. Each of these countries has estab­lished, within its civil government, a department having exclusive control of the more important highways, and in most cases also a supervisory manage­ment of the parish a.ndoranCh roads which connect the smaller towns ai:ul serve as feeders to the mainline.

Mr. BEVERIDGE. I hope the Senator will permit a question there. I am much interested in his address.

Mr. LATIMER. Certainly. Mr. BEVERIDGE. Do I understand that in each of the coun­

tries which henam.esthe general government has exclusive charge of the highways; that in England, for instance, all the highways are cared for by the General Government and uot by the parishes; that in France they are cared for by the General Government and not by the anondissements, and so forth? I am deeply interested in the Senator's address, and I ask him to state that information.

Mr. LATIMER. In answer to the question of the Senator from Indiana, I desire to say that there is a difference in the laws of the different countries with regard to this question, but there is not a civilized nation on earth that enjoys the benefits of good roads. macadam roads, except where the government has taken a hand in it and taken control.

Mr. BEVERIDGE. The general goT"ernment? Mr. LATIMER. The general government. Mr. BEVERIDGE. And if the loca.l divisions of the govern­

ment have anything to do with it they have to do it under the supervision of the general government?

Mr. LATIMER. Yes, sir. Mr. Potter continues: Varying1_of course, in some degree as to details of management, there is

!till a practical unanimity among the great nn.tions of Europe in this policy of governmental control. It began with the popular recognition of two facts: (1) That the public road,like the public post-office and the court-house., is public property, established by law for the use of all the people; and (2) that the extravagant waste of time, labor, and property, which had been for centuries imposed by the use of mud roads, could on'iy be checked a.nd the true resources of the country brought out by the construction a.nd maintenance of good roads under an intelligent he8.d. This was a doctrine of TresaSPet and his English disciples, Telford and MeAd~ and events have verified it. An exhaustive examination by the writer of reports and statistics collected in twenty-three European states shows that in each case the quality and condition of a public road are raised or lowered in about the same measure that the genera government bestows or withholds its official direction.

What is the commercial value of these high-class roads? It is difficult to estimate it, a.nd when weare told we can scarcely believe. The nimble-witted Frenchman spends $18,000,{){)() a year to keep his roads in good repair. He will

• tell you the reason for this in two words: "It pays." He knows that a horse can draw twice as much load on the surface of a macadamized road as upon a dirt road in its best condition, four times as much when the dirt roll.d is in its n.vera~e state, and ten times as much when the dirt road is turned to mud by the rams of fall and spring. He will tell you thatgoodroadswill increase the value of your farm, shorten the distance to market, save time, wagons, harness, horses; enlarge the territory which contributes to the home market: quicken social communication, and add to the wealth of the individual and the state. Tho American farmer will doubt, but the Frenchman knows; he bas tried both ways.

Practically the same system of coustructing and improving the roads of our country is in operation to-day that existed in Eng­land prior to 1835. With few exceptions the whole matter is left in the hands of our county, parish, or district officers, who have little or no knowledge of improved methods of road coustruction;

but even if they had, the money to give it practical effect would be lacking.

Mr. STEW ART. Will the Senator all:>w me to contribute a fact right in this connection?

Mr. LATIMER. Gladly. Mr. STEWART. When I w:!B at college they gave me a com­

position to write on the mail system of Rome. In investigating that system I found that the Roman Empire had constructed paved roads nearly all over the vast country constituting the Em­piTa. The mails were carried over these roads with great rapidity. Between the most important points the letter mails were carried as fast as 15 miles per hour by changing horses every 5 miles. The mail ·system over these roads was almost as effective as mod­ern systems over railroads~ Some of these roads were wide euough for four chariots to travel abreast. They were made in the most substantial manner, the ruins of which in many places still remain. From Constantinople around the Mediterranean to Rome, thence to Paris, and to all the principal points that vast region was accessible by means of the magnificent highways con­structed for military and postal service. These roads were the foundation of the strength of the Empire. They enabled Rome to march her armies and dominate nearly all of Europe. With­out such roads the Roman Empire would have been confined to the country surrounding Rome, and Roman enterprise, power, and domination conld never have reached the proud eminence which history records.

Mr. LATIMER. I am very m11ch obliged to the Senator from Nevada. · ·

GOVERmlENT AID IN' THE .EARLY PART OF THE LAST CENTURY.

Mr. President, many attempts have been made to secure the aid of the Federal Government in improving these conditious, but, with the exception of the old Cumberland road and other like projects in which the Government became interested in the early part of last century, practically nothing has been done. In the exercise of the power of appropriation by Congress some $14,000,000 were expended by the General Government for the improvement of the roads; but partly on account of constitutional objectious and partly becallSe other improvements absorbed the public mind, these appropriatious ceased about 1825, and nothing has since been done except in the Territories, the District of Columbia, and for military purposes.

ROAD IMPROVElt:ENT BY STATE T.A.XATION.

Some of the States have passed highway laws providing for a levy of a road tax on their taxable wealth, but such laws are con­fined to the wealthier States, whose taxable property is sufficient to raise a large sum of money from a low rate of taxation. For instance, a tax of 1 mill levied by the State of New York would raise more money than a tax of 50 mills by South Carolina, although I venture the assertion that there are more miles of road in South Carolina that need improvement than inN ew York. The reason that all the States do not pass highway laws is not on account of a lack of interest in good roads or of thrift or energy, but because the taxable wealth of most of the States is so small that an euormous rate of taxation would be necessary to raise a sufficient sum of money to accomplish practical results. The wealthier States have not grown rich by greater thrift or energy altogether, but partly on account of advantage of location and natural facilities for handling the trade of the country, and for the fm·ther reason that the capital which controls the great industrial enterprises of the country is located in them.

.All of these enterprises have their headquarters in these centers of wealth, but draw their riches from industries located, in large part. in less wealthy States. Still another reason for the greater wealth of certain sections over others is that the war left a large part of our country prostrate and impoverished, from which con­dition it has not yet recovered. The other sections have had no such setback, and, if anything, have grown richer on account of the WaT.

I draw attention to these facts here in order to meet any argu­ment which may be made on the ground that if certain States are improving their roads all of them can do the same, and that it is only because of lack of interest and enterprise that they are not doing so. It is not lack of interest or enterprise, but lack of money, and there is no just reason why wealth which South Carolina has produced, butwhich has been absorbed by New York, should not be taxed there for the benefit of the roads of South Carolina.

With the exception of what the wealthier States are doing, our common roads are subject to practically the same law, the same antiquated system, that prevailed when the Union was formed.

Mr. President, while the country has not ceased to advance in area, population, and wealth, and along all the lines of science, trade, and industry; it must be remembered that this advance­ment has been made not by the aid of good roads, but in spite of ba?- .ones. If the people, with all their energy, zeal, and public spmt. had been a1ded by a system of good ro.ads~ enabling them to realize earlier our tremendous possibilities and to avoid the

748 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 14,

enormous loss occasioned by the bad condition of the roads who can estimate what our advancement would have been? '

A BILL FOR NATIONAL AID-ITS PROVISIONS.

The bill which I have introduced, known as Senate bill No. 2958, provides for a plan of cooperation between the Federal Gov­ernment and the various State and Territories of the United States for the construction and improvement of the public roads. It pro:rJ.~es for a bureau of highways, to be composed of three commiSsiOners-one to be appomted from the political party in power, one from the largest minority political party, and the third to be an army officer from the Engineer Corps, with rank not be­low that of captain. My idea in providing for a commission is to free the management and prosecution of the work from political influences as far as possible, and also on account of the vast amount of labor which will be necessary to put the plan in opera­tion. The bill leaves all the details of perfecting the plan of cooperation to the commission, and simply provides for an appro­priation of $24,000,000 to be available as a fund for road construc­tion and improvement, to be distributed among the States and Territories ,according to population.

Before the States or Territories can receive the benefits of the act they must provide for one-half of the cost of any construc­tion of improvements that may be undertaken and secure the necessary right of way. They must then do the work under the rules and regulations of the Bureau and maintain the roads in good repair after the work has been done. Nothing in the bill pt:events the States or Territories from distributing their portion of the cost among their civil subdivisions. I have here a table showing what the various States and Territories would receive under the provisions of this bill, which I will ask leave to insert with my remarks without reading.

The PRESIDENT pro temp01·e. The Chair hears no objection. The table referred to iB as follows:

UNITED ST"ATES DEPARTl£J:NT OF AGRICULTURB, OFFICE oF PuJJLIC Roi.D INQUIRIES,

Washington, D. C., January :u, 1904. Populati011, of the various States of t'!-e United States, acccn·ding to the census

of 1900, and amount to be apprupnated for the constn.tction of public roads in each State, apportioned acco1·ding to po_pulation.

State.

---------------------------------Alabama __ .... ---------·-------_·---· ______ ---------·--

!~~;~~~~~~:~~~ ~::~~~:~::~~:~~~~~~~~=~~::~~:: ~~~~ Delaware __ . __________________ ----- ______________ -·-··-Florid~ __ . ___ _______ ----- _________ ----- ________________ _

Th~t~:~- == = :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

rnili~:a::: :::: ==: :: = =:: =: :: ==== = == ===: === ====: ::::: ==== = Iowa_----- __ -- --- _________________________ ----- ________ _

Ka.ns&S ------------ -------------------------------------ten~~~1 -- ---- ----------------------------------------M~~fne _: .. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Maryland ___ __ . ___ ____ __ . _____________________________ _ Masr.a.chusetts _________ -------- ___________ -------------1\Iiclliga.n. __________ . _. _________________ ... ____________ _ M!nl!-es.ota._. ______ ---- - _ ----- _____ ----- ------ _ ----- _____ _ M~lSSlJ?Pl --- __ ------.---- ------.-----------. _ ---------:Missom·t. ________ .. __ . ____ . _______________ ----- --- _ -----

Montana _ ---·-- _ ----------------------------- ____ ------Nebra-ska _________________ ----- _ ----- _________________ _

~ i~~:~::~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~:~~~ ~:~:~~~:~~~~ North Carolina.-----------·-------------------- _____ ·--

~~:;~-~~~~~:::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~~;~~I :Vania.-:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~~&e 6!~~::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: South Dakota.----- --------------- ----·------------- ___ _ ~ennessee _ ----------------------------------------- ___ _

U~h3. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~~riJ?.O::tt _____ . __ --------------------- ----------------- _

;;!~~~=::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ;lSCO~----- .. -! ---~--- ---------------· --------------YOilllng _________________ . ·-- ... ________ -------- ___ ...

I p nla.ti Appro­

op on, pnation cell!!us of for public

1900· roads.

1,828,697 l $588, 264, 1,3ll,!'M 421,910 1,485,053 ~77, 71!

539,700 173,613 903, 420 292, 225 184,735 59, 4t6 528,M2 170,0'24

2, 216, 331 712, 960 161, 772 52, 04.0

4,821,550 1,551,019 2,516, 4.62 809,507 2, 231,853 717,953 1,4';'0,495 ~73,036 2,147,17 4 690, 713 1, 31l1, 625 !4:4:, «8

694, 4.66 223, sro 1,188, 0« ....a82, 175 2,805, 34Q 002,437 2, 420, !)82 778, 793 1, 751, b'94 583, 397 1,551,270 499,020 3,106,665 900,006

243, 329 78, 275 1 006 BOO 343,012

' 42: ~ 13, 618 411,588 132,4.{)1

1, 883,669 605,94:7 7,268,894 2,338,292 1, 893.810 609,210

319, 14.6 102, 664 {,157,545 1,337,4:18

413 536 133, 028 6,302)15 2,027,294

428,556 137,860 1, 340, 31.6 431.,159

4.{)1,570 129,179 2, 020, 616 650,001 a, 048, no 980, 723

216, U9 89,026 343,641 110, 5«

1, 854,184 596,4.63 518, 103 166, 666 958 800 008, {31

2,069:042 665,579 92,531 29,766

Total States------------------------------------- 74,607,225 Territories (including Alaska andHawaii),District

24:, 000, 000

of Columbia, military and navaL___________________ 1,696,162 1---------1-------

Total United States ________ ------------- -------- 76,303,387 24:,000,000

NOT1!:.-·The a.ppropriatio;J. contemplated, $24,000,000, is equal to 32.16846626 cents for.eacb of the 74,607,22.) persons residing in the various States as enu­merated m the census of 1900. The appropriation indicated for each'Sta.te is equal to it8 popula.tion multiplied by the average appropriation per capita.

POPULAR DEMAND FOR THIS Lli:GISLATIOY.

Mr. LATIMER. Mr. President, this bill is simply intended to br?a~en .the scope of the Office of Public Road Inquiries already e.nstmg m the Department of Agriculture. That Office bas <'!one a great work in arousing the people to the necessity of road improve­me~t. Fro!ll its ,efficient work a strong movement has grown up, haVJng for Its obJect the betterment of road conditions and in al­most every State organizations are being formed. while interest has been aroused and the people awakened to the need of improved roads, they realize that it is only by the aid of the Federal Govern­~ent that this end can be accomplished. Road conventions, na­tional and Sta~ gr~nges,.and many of the State legislat-::~res have passed resolutions mdorsmg the plan of Federal aid proposed in this .bill. It is in ob~dience to tbi~ general demand of the people and~ accordance W}-th .my .own VIews on thie great aubject that I have mtroduced this bill, m the hope that it may receive early consideration &t the hands of Congre~ and become a law. I want to s.ta~ here that I am not wedded to any particular plan. All I desire IS to see the work begin, and any means that will accom­plish that ~nd will command my support.

Mr. President, the power of Congress toapprofriate the money necessary to carry out the provisions of this bil seems to me to be clearly established. I am not a lawyer and do not propose to attempt a le_ngthy dis?ussion of the constitutional powers of Con­gress, but srmply desire to state the grounds on which I claim ample power for all the purposes of this bill.

IS IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

In the first place, the bill is not subject to the constitutional o b­jections discussed by the Presidents in their veto mess:trres from Madison to Arthur, when the question of the authority of Con­gress to enter upon a general system of internal improvements was before them. They held that Congress did not have the riO"hts of eminent domain and police powernecessaryto enable it to go into the s~ver!l-1 ~tates and .undertake internal improvements.

This. billlB ~~t subJect to that objection, for the reason that u_nder Its proVlSwn the States are required to furnish the necessary 11.ght of way and to protect and maintain the roads after they are constructed. None of the powers of the States are interfered with, but the bill simply deals with the right of the Federal Gov­ernment to appropriate money to aid in constructing public roads for the good of all the people. Most of the Presidents have held that Co!1gress had unlimited power to levy and collect taxes, under a uniform system, and that the power to appropriate money is co­equal with the power to levy taxes, being restricted only by the duty to appropriate it for objects which will benefit all the people.

Mr. Monroe, considering this subject, said: My id~a. ~that Congress. has ~limited power to raise money, n.nd in its

a.ppropr~atiO? they have a. discretiOnary power, restricted only by the duty to approprmte 1t to purpoaes of common defense and g&n&ral, not local national not State, benefit. ' '

In 1871 John C. Calhoun, then a Member of the House jntro­duced ~ ~ill setting aside a fund for roads and canals, a~d sup­~orted.It m an able speech, both as being constitutional and in h~e ~th ~he duty of the Government. He claimed ample con­stitutiOnality for the measure under the power of appropriation. The bill was also supported by Mr. Clay and passed both Houses of Congress, but was vetoed by President Madison because it had been so amended as to give the General Government power to apply the money to the objects of the bill without 1·egard to the rights of the States.

An appropriation is all that is asked for in this bill. The Gov­ernment is not asked to undertake the absolute construction OJ' improvement of the roads. That is left to the States and none of their rights are in any way infringed. Thera is no 'reason in my judgment, why this power of appropriation should not' be used for this purpose. This is a question which affects the wel­fare of all the people. Every man, woman, and child of the Re­public would be equally benefited by improved roads, and the money raised by taxation could not be used for any purpose more consistent with the general welfare.

WHAT CONGRESS HAS DONE IN OTHER DffiECTIONS.

But, Mr. President, the strict letter of the Constitution, which was invoked by the Presidents against the e.xpenditure of money for internal improvements, has been disregarded by Congress for many years in enacting laws for the improvement of rivers and harbors. Roads, canals, rivers, and harbors were always consid­ered as one class by those who held that the Constitution did not give Congress any authority over internal improvements. The doors have been opened to rivers and harbors, and I see no reason why Congress can net enter upon the improvement of the public roads with as much authority as they have for the improvement of rivers and harbors.

Under the power of appropriation Congress has passed many acts carrying large sums of money. Examples of the exercise of this power are the appropriation of $15,000.000 for the purchase of Louisiana; $20,000,000 for the purchase of the Philippine Islands,

1904. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 749 the relief of the distressed in this and foreign countries, among them being, in recent years, the appropriation of $50,000 for the relief of Cuba and $3,000,000 for the relief of the Philippine Islands; appropriations for scientific investigations, stamping out diseases, for expositions. and for educational purposes.

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Mr. President--The PRESIDENT pro t~mpore. Do~s the Senator from South

Carolina yield to the Senator from Indmna? Mr. LATIMER. I do. Mr. BEVERIDGE. The Senator might even ·further add that

ConO'ress made ail appropriation of $200,000 for the relief of the suff~rers in the disaster at Martinique, a colony of France. Con­gress also, I think, some. ~ears ago made an ~ppropriation fot· sending shiploads of proVISIOns to the sufferers m Ireland, a part of the British Empire. ·

Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow me? Mr. LATIMER. I thank the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Presi-

• dent for the additional evidence he has given. But I might mul­tiply' innumerable evidences of liberal appropriations by the Fed­eral Government along these lines. I thought, however, the few instances I ha\e mentioned sufficient to prove the position I am mking. . .

Now I yield to the Senator from W1sconsm. Mr. SPOONER. I want to ask the Senator from Indiana a

question. Might not the sending of relief to Ireland have a very important influence in our foreign relations?

:Mr. BEVERIDGE. It might. Mr. SPOONER. Would it not naturally? Mr. BEVERIDGE. I think it would. Mr. SPOONER. Then is there not warrant for it in the Con­

stitution? Mr. BEVERIDGE. In response to that I want to ask the Sen­

ator from Wisconsin a question. I ask whether he thinks that the imorovement of our foreign relations with the British Empire influenced us in sending provisions to suffering Ireland?

Mr. SPOONER. No: I would not say that. Mr. BEVERIDGE. No; the motive and purpose were human-

itarian. . Mr. SPOONER. Yes. Mr. BEVERIDGE. Now I wish to ask the Senator from Wis­

consin whether he thinks there is any distinct provision in the Constitution authorizing the appropriation of money for the relief of the colony of another country outside of the general power to appropriate money? Is not the power to appropriate money for such purposes a power inherent in sovereignty? That is an idea I got from the Senator himself.

Mr. SPOONER. I am not certain that the Senator has got the right idea. 1

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Well, I got the idea. Mr. LATIMER. I should like to yield to the distinguished

Senators, but-The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Eenator from South

Carolina yield? Mr. LATIMER. Yes, sir. _ Mr. SPOONER. If the Senator got that idea from me, he got

something from me I never had. Mr. BEVERIDGE. I am sorry the idea does not have the

added weight of the illustrious parentage which I thought it had; but, even if it has not, it is a gcod idea; and one is always glad to accept ideas from whatever source they come.

I beg to say with reference to the speech the Senator from South Carolina is making that, coming as it does from a Senator from South Carolina, it may b3 called nothing short of a milestone in the progress of constitutional thinking. We have an assertion here of the right of the General Government, not only to make appropriations for internal improvements, such as rivers and har­bors but also to make appropriations for the ,improvement of high~ays. The constitutional phase of the argument is even larger than the practical consequences of the contention.

Mr. LATIMER. Mr. President, I am very much obliged to the Senators for the information they have given, but I am again re­minded that Senators seem to fail here, as they have e~sewhere and on other occasions, to agree as to the power of Congress un­der the Cons_titution to appropriate money for objects of this kind. It only strengthens the position I have mken as a layman. When the3e grei\t statesmen, these lawyers who have studied the Constitution so thoroughly, failed to agree, then there is an ex­cuse for a layman to come in and assert his opinion i.n regard to the Constitution made by the fathers. Mr. President, about $450,000,000 has been appropriated and spent for the improvement of rivers and harbors under the power to regulate commerce among the several States. Eighteen million dollars of this amount has been expended in building levees on the Mississippi River under a plan of cooperation very similar to that contained in this bill, and the balance--has been expended in opening up and improving the

rivers and harbors of the country. Every inland harbor and ra. mote river has received a share.

One hundred and ninety-six million acres of land were given to the Pacific railroads, besides guaranteeing their bonded in­debtedness, amounting to $138,000,000, principal and interest.

In view of these facts, will anyone stand upon any refined argu­ment as to the power of Congress to make this appropriation? Are not the people more entitled to Government aid in improving the roads than the special classes who have received the benefits of the appropriations enumerated above? Can any just reason be advanced why all of these favored objects of improvement should receive ample appropriation and the roads, the most im­portant of all, should not? To my mind no adequate reason can be advanced.

THE QUESTION OF TRANSPORTATION.

The question of transportation is so intimately connected with the existence and well-being of every class of our people as to make it the most important factor of our national and indi­vidual life. All the people are, to a large extent, absolutely dependent for life upon means of transportation. Those who pro­duce the necessaries of life are less dependent upon them than any other class, because they ha--re the means of existence at hand. But it is not so with the millions who live in cities and towns, or who are engaged in mechanics, trades, or the professions. No matter how remunerative their employment may be; where they are employed, or by whom, they are equally dependent upon the neceEsaries of life which mnst come to them from those engaged in their production. The millionaire and his family in their pala­tial home are, in this respect, upon an exact equality with the in­habitants of the crowded alleys of our cities. Our system of railroads, together with our common roads, are undoubtedly suf­ficient for transporting the actual necessaries of life. But when you admit that means of transportation are essential, you are forced to the conclusion that we ought to have the best,

WHAT GOOD ROADS WOULD SAVE.

It may be suggested that the railroads have decreased the need for improved country roads. Bnt when you consider that the cost of transporting the products of the farm, mine, and forest over the dirt roads to the shipping point in the year 1896 cost $1,000,000,000, while only $700,000,000 was received by all the railroads from every source, it is readily seen that our railroad system does not supply all the needs of the people. ·

)!'rom careful investigation, the average cost of transporting a ton over a mile of. dirt road in the United States has been found to be 25 cents. From statistics gathered by our consuls in twenty­three European countries, the costovertheimproved roads of Eu­rope has been found to be from 10 to 12 cents. Taking into con­sideration the higher wages and higher cost of living in this colin­try, it is a fair estimate that under a system of improved roads the cost in this country would be reduced to 12t cents per ton per mile. Thus it will be seen that a saving of $500,000,000 would have been made if we had had improved roads in 1896.

The $700,000,000 received by the railroads in 1896 was returned to the people. Seventy per cent of it was paid out for betterment, labor, and material, and the balance in taxes and dividends. All of this. vast return benefited the whole country. It gave employ­ment to labor, produced a demand for. material, added to the wealth of the people, and aided the revenues of the States and nation. On the other hand, the $1,000,000,000 consumed in cost of transportation over the dirt roads paid not a cent in dividends, nor for the labor employed in maintaining the roads, nor for the excessive wear and tear of animals and wagons which passed over them. On the contrary, the condition was a source of loss to pro­ducer and consumer.

The census shows that there are about 16,000,000 horses and mules on the farms in the United States, and at a modest esti­mate 2,000,000 of them could be done away with under a system of improved roads. The cost of maintaining the 2,000,000 ani­mals would be approximately$115,000,000 a year, and their value $140,000,000, which makes a total of $2d5,000,000 that would be saved the first year in this item alone. ·

From these twoillustrations it will be seen that about $700,000,000 would be saved to the people in one year under a system of im­proved roads, and I consider the estimates below the real condi­tion. Smtistics of estimated savings under an improved road sys­t em could be multiplied indefinitely, but I take it that this phase of the question must be so apparent to any thinking man that it will not be necessary to dwell upon it.

MORAL AND SOCIAL ADVANTAGES OF GOOD ROADS.

But, Mr. President, there are other elements of advantage which recommend the improvement of our roads, far more im-portant and demanding far more serious consideration than any financial advantage that we may gain by it.

. -

•

750 C.ONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANU.AR1" 14,

More than one-third of our people are engaged in agricultural pursuits and live away from the centers of p(}pulation. For the most part they- li"V& on. their fanns at a distanee of from l to 25 mile from the nearest town or city~ Upon this class of our peo~ ple depends, in a large measure, the bodily comfort of the whole country, and the wealth 0f the country is primarily drawn largely from their labor. They are. the producers of the· food products and many of the raw materiaJS upon which the world lives and grows fat in body and finance. It is a self--&vident prop0sition~ then, that the advancement of Olll' 2.gricultural classes should: be the prime concern of every statesman. and patriotic citizen. The necessity o.f their edumtion in mind, and in improved methods and means of production, and of their contentment in their avoca­tion can not be overestimated.

What can tend Ill:Dre to the accomplishment of these ends than a. better system of our common roads? Good roads will bring them in closer touch with the centers of progress and activity and aid them in securing the enlarged ideas and iiil}Jroved ma­chinery so necessary in order that they may keep abreast of the march of progress in aJ1 other lines. As they advance, so will the country advance, permanently and in equal ratio. With the roads in the pl'esent condition, millions of our agricultmal classes are so cut off frem. all the influences of progress that they have become isolated do not keep np with the developments in other linest use the same methods. of business that their fathe-rs used, me:rely eke out their e:ristenc6", and neither participate in nor add their share to the general wealth and comfort.

Bu.t a more serious consideration still is the increasing tend­ency of the people to leave the farm and go to the cities. This results in taking from the farm the bone and sinew and brain essential to the successful carrying on of our agriculture and reaves them in the hands of illiterate and thriftless people. But can anything else be expected? Are the ambitious young men and women who have been raised on the farm, have lived close to natm·e and caught the great principle of all progress and de-. velopment from the movings of th& universe, and who feel their­hearts and minds yearn for the fello.wship. and learning. the chances and hopes and ambitio11s of the world from which they are so remote and cut cff, with no seeming hope of improve­m~nt-I say, can they be expected to remain content. with their lot, thereby forfeitio~ every ~piration that is dear to them? If we would do away Wlth this ev.il, s.ome means must be devised to make farm life attractive and ple~a11t and -to give to that class of our people some of the beneiits and advantages enjoyed by the other classes. The solution of the pro1Tlem is the im­provement of our roads.

THE ONLY WAY TO SECURE GOOD RO.A.DS.

Mr. President, I am convinced that it is only by Federal aid that we wm ever h<1ve good roads tm.iformly throughout the country. The Government must stimulate and aid the people in the work. It is the history of road dev&lopment in everyeountry. Small sections of roads may be built in various sections, but we can never advan:ce in this :respect in proportion to the needs of the people unless we can secure Government aid.

It must be apparent to anyone that the real cause of the poor condition of our roads is the exemption of ab0ut two-thirds of our population from any taxation whatever for this purpose-A It can no1l te said that all. the people are not equally dependent upon them or that they would not all reap the benefit of any improve­ment made in our road system. It is likewise true that the bur~ den of bnil<fmg a_nd maintaining the roads ought to be distributed equally among all the people. Under the present system the total burden falls upon those who are already taxed to a greater extent, c-onsidering their means, than any other class. They are not able to raise the money necessary to improve the roads.

To build an impl'oved: road along modern lines costs from 10(}. to $40() per mile where sand and clay are used, a.nd from 3',000 to $9,000 per mile formacadamized roads, depending 0n thedistanee the material has to be brought. I have found, after a careful estimate, that the amount of money expended each year under the present system averages about $12 per mile. It is impossible, with this amount of money, to construct or even improve the public road . '1'he money is scarcely sufficient to keep them in passable condition. Where is the balance of the money to build improved roads to come from? It must be raised in two ways:

Fir t. The States must levy a ta:r for this purpose on their total W€alth large enough to raise one-half' of the cost+ This tax will range from 1 to 10 mills, according t<r the taxable wealth of the State and in my judgment, wonldnaveto continue for five years.

Second. The Federal Government ought to appropriate the other half out of the General Treasury.

Th question will naturally be asked, If the people who are taxed for road purposes now are not able to be taxed to any greater extent, how will they pay the additional tax which will be necessary to raise the State's half of the cost of improved roads? The arurwer is simple. When the Government has made this

appropriation, the people will then be wi1.J.1ng to be taxed suffi­ciently to raise their half, because the moneyto dothework,com­ingnot only from the corporations and cities of thee States but from the Government, will be spent in the local commu.nitie~, giving employment to labor, teams, and wagons, enhancing the value of products, cheapening the cost of production and transportation, raising the valuation of land, and putting money in circulation.

HOW IT WILL Ali'J'ECT THE E'ARMER.

Take, for instance, the farmer who owns 100 acres of land, valued at $30 per acre, and who has farm ~a.ls, farm imple­ments, and other property amounting to 1,000, making his total · . taxable property $4.000. LevY a 5-mill tax, ~ I propose, on this property, and it will raise $20. I hold that under the provisions of this bill there are three ways by which he would make 100 per cent and pay his taxes. This farmer will haul at least 50 tons over the roads in a year, 8 miles being the average haul and 25 cents per ton per mile the cost under the present state of the roads, making the total cost 100. Reduce the cost of transpor­tation one-half, by reason of improved roads, and he could move this 50 rons for $50. He could then pay his $20 tax and have $30 profit in that transaction.

Again, on account of the increased demand for labor, he would have at least fifty-two days, when not engaged in his crop, that he mfght dev0te to hauling material to go into the construction of the roads, for-which he would receive $2'.50 per day for his man and team, which would make him 8130. Take off half for wear and tear and use of team and he would have $65 profit~ Out of this he could pay his tax and have S45 left. Besides, the increase of the value of his land, under a system of improved roads, would be at least $5 pe1· acre, making a total of .. -oo. Take off tOO for the five years this tax would exist, and you l.t'.ve a gain of· $400 in that transaction.

'l'HE NATI.ON'S DUTY.

The argument may be advanced~ and doubtless will be, that if these advantages are to follow to the taxpayers, why not let the States levy a sufficient tax to meet the whole expense, and thus relieve th~ General Government?-

My answer to that is tha.t the burden of improving the roads should be distributed equally among all the people~ A tax le-vied by tha States would only reach a portion of them. Only those people whose property is visible could be reached. The tax would fall mo t heavily upon the very class wh"O already bear the- cost of hllilding and maintaining the roads. Their property consists of land, dom-estic animals, farm implements, household furniture, and other visible property. 'I'he result would be that the tax levied would reach every farthing they possess. But it would not be ro with a large class of our people, whose money and property are secure from taxation by being in stocks, bonds, shares in cor­porations, and other like securities. all of which are capable of being removed from place to place, thus avoiding taxation.

On the other hand, the revenues of the Government are raised largely from duties laid on co:Bsumption, thus distributing the burden equally among all the people. An appropriation, therefore, out of the money in the TreasuTy for the purpose of improving the roads would make every consumer bear a portion of the cost. But the Government is not asked to. bear the whole cost. If it will appropriate one-half of the first cost of improving the roads, nothing more, in my jndgment, will be-necessary.

Another reason why the General Government should make this appropriation is that it uses th-e roads for the deliyery of the mails. Can it be said that it should not bear a portion of the ex­pense of improving these :roads? The Government has assumed the obligation of delivering the mails, and it should gtve the peo­ple the best service possible. The people not only have to pay for their mail privileges, but in addition are compelled to pro­vide roads over which the mails travel and keep them in proper repair. The rapid development of the rural free--delivery system will in a short time compel the Government to make use of every road on which people live, and it is but just and in line with its plain duty that the Government should aid the people in main­taining them.

WR.AT SHA.L.L BE DOSE WITH THE SURPLUS?

But~ Mr. Pre ident, the most potential reason why the G6neral Government should aid in the improvement of the roads is ODe resting bath 11pon duty and policy.

Unde-r existing revenue laws an enormous anrplus has coma into the Treasury. I will not enter into a discussion of the tariff, by means of which this large surplus has accumulated. It is suf­ficient to say that the heavy taxes laid upon the people have been snffieient not only to meet the current expense of the Govern­ment, but also to accumulate a large surplus. That surplus be­longs to the people. To allow it to remain in tile vaults of the Treasury will be injurious in many ways. It will take that large sum from the volume of the circulating medium-all of which is needed in the business of the country-and make it unproductive. It will add to the difficulties and rate of obtaining money, thereby

1904. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 751 enabling moneyed interests to make heavier exactions fl:om_ the neople. TlriH being true, the important question is:_ In what manner can the surplus be used so as to most generally serve the whole people{

The idea of depositing it in national banks without interest is unjustifiable upon any grounds of morals or bnsmess. The 158,000,000 that they have received in this way will enable them

to double it in ten or twelve years, thereby adding a like- amount to their already overflowing treasuries. Will any Democrat aid and assist this policy by a vote against this measm·e, which seeks to distribute the surplus among all the people, that they may in some measure be· reimbursed for the heavy taxation by which it was raised? Will any Republican be willing for his peor>le. to know that he stands for depositing this money in the banks with­out interest when he has an opportunity to cast his vote for i~ expenditure in a manner that will repay them many fold?

What; then, will you do with the surplus? The public debt will not need it before 1907. The current expenses of the Gov­ernment are provided for, and any tem-porary deficit can be met in many ways that will not touch the surplus. Will you use it for the canal? It cannot be completed within ten or fifteen year£, if ever, and only a small portion of the surplus will be. necessary to provide- fm:: the work as it progr~sses, while in the meantime the surplus will continue to grow undet: present law. What, then, will you do with it? The policy of the Government in the past has been to appropriate it for various purposes which bene­fited only a part of the people. It has been spent-in pensions, for the improvement of rivers and harbors, public buildings~ the relief of the distressed and suffering, and other like objects which only indirectly benefit all the people. The uses to which it has been put embrace an infinite variety of objects, none of which can be mentioned that were directly beneficial to tlie whole people.

The proposition contained in this bill fllTniahes the mast just and equitable means of using this surplus. No one will deny the. importance of the subject. To do so would be a confession of ignorance. It affects every class of our people. The money will go in equal proportions into all of the States to be used in every community, increasing prosperii;y, thrift, and contentment. Can any other object of legislation be mentioned which will compare favorably with it? Could the money of the people be put to a. more patriotic and general use? Why then should it not be done? We have the power-the Constitution offeiS no ban-ier. We have the money, not needed for any other-purpose, or if it be claimed other­Wise certainly none half so meritorious as this. Why should it not be used thus? Mr. President. I can conceive of no proi?osition that more completely involves ,the duty and patriotism of Con­gress.

CHA.B!.CTER OJr OUB RURJ.Ii POPULATION.

The country people, Mr. President, che1ishwithmtheir bosoms the highest patriotism to be found in the nation. They have borne unmurmuringlyall the Governmenthasdemandedofthem. When the military and naval forces ha-ve needed them they have re­sponded, and on a hundred fields have yielded their lives, their health, and their property as an offering to the most disinterested patriotism of which the annals of the world afford example. They have asked less of the Government than any other class. Giving themselves up to their pursuits, they have "me-de brick without straw," but they have not forgotten the duties of citizenship, and have kept themselves pure for their exercise.

They have ne-ver ceased to love their country and to look upon it as the ideal ofimman h'berty. And itmustnatbeforgotten that it is to them that thanation must always look for support and main­tenance. The Secretary of Agri.cultura in. a recent report states "that the farm products. during the last fourteen years,. no year excepted, aggregated $4,806,000,000 in products. Other th&n farm products during the same period the balance of trade was adverse to this country to the extent of $865,000,000. Our farmers not only canceled this immense obligation, but placed $3,940,000,000 to the credit of the nation. when the books of the international exchange were balanced.

Mr. BEVERIDGE. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER (~fr. McCRE.AR.Y in the chair).

Doe.s. the Senator from South. Carolina._ yield to the Senator from Ind1ana?

Mr. LATIMER. Certainly. Mr. BEVERIDGE. The Senator does not mean to say, I hope,

that the balance of trade for the year he names was against us? Mr. LATIMER. Less the farm products. }fu. BEVERIDGE. .A.h, less the farm products! Mr. LATIMER. The farmers not only paid the $865,000,000,

but left a. surplus--Yr-. BEVERIDGE. With the farm products and with ;ill the

other exports the balance of trade wa.s enormously in our favor. 1rlr. LATIMER. The point I am making is that the farmers

have made this balance of traC.e. They are the men who have brr)ught this great credit to the American Republic, and it is for

their interest and in their interest that. I appeal now for aid by the Federal Government to improve the roads, so that their pros­perity may continue to increase. The position I am taking and the point I am making is very cleaT, that if you would exclude the farm products from the exports the balance of trade would have been against us to the amount of $865,000,000. If you in­clude the exports which came from the farm, the ad_verse- balance is not only wiped out, but we have a surplus to the amount of $3,940,000,000. That is the point I am n;taking. It is the farmers, then, that have paid the foreign bondholders.

Do they not, then, deserve for all this some recognition? Will you longer suffer them to bear an unequal burden_ and not give them at least equal benefits?

Look at it, if you please, from the basest standpoint possible, that of self-interest. Will it pay? As the power of consumption isin­creased1 so will the revenues grow. As you enable the people to consume, so you will secure corresponding returns. To put out this money in this: way woui! be the best investment that could possibly be made.. The plane af: living and of doing business would be advanced and expanded, so that the needs and desires of the :Qeople would be increased. Development in all lines of busi­ness would call for- greater expenditures, and the consequence would be that the Government would receive a return of more than a lmndredfolti

THE CHA.RGE O:P P A.TlmNA.LISY.

It has been. said that the proposition of Federal aid to improve the. roads is paternalistic; that its tendency will be to cause the people ta rely on the General Government too largely, and not exercise. their own resources and energies. But, Mr. President, this argument has no basia in fact. Why is this plan paternalis­tic? Does it give to the people a snm of money out of the Treasury of the General Government to aid them in their private busi­ness? If it does~ it is paternalistic; if it does not, it is not pater­nalistic. Are we to give a new meaning to the term " paternal­ism?" Is it to mean from this time forth that- any appropriation for a strictly public pu:rposeyin line with the duty of the Govern­ment and for the incidental benefit of the whole people as well as the State and General Government~ is paternalism? Does this bill do more than that? If it is paternalistic, then upon what reasoning do you defend_ appropriations for rivers and harbors, tor removing obs.tru:ctions in rivera within States, for destroying pests and diseases, an.d:h::riga.ting landagainst the same objection? Are they not all more susceptible_ of being called paternalistic than this bill?

Can any Democrat who voted for a bounty on sugar, or believed in the principle, or who believes in the protection of the raw ma­terial of his State, consistently carr this measure paternalistic? Can any Republican who believes in the doctrine of protection oppose it on that ground? Let us be frank. Mr. President, upon many other questions paternalistic tendencies- may have appeared; and no one will deny that the people ought to rely in the first instance upon themselves in their private affairs, otherwise their independence, manhood, and ability for self-government would inevitably be sapped and finally de troyed;. but this is the first time that the evils of p~ternalism have been seriously invoked against a strictly public improvement, affecting the whole body of the people equally, distributing the burdens and benefits equally, and that is in line with the duty and within the means of the Government. It must fall to the ground as being without the shadow of force or consistency.

WILL I'r lJANlrRUPT THE GOVliRNYlrnT?

It may be said that to undertake to pay one-half of the cost of improving the roads of the country will bankrupt the Govern­ment. If that be so, how can the States or people be expected to pay all the cost? Does not the argument bring us to the conclu· sion, if it be true, that the roads must forever remain in theil present condition? But, Mr. President, the argument has no merit. It has been estimated by the Office of Public Road In­quiries that one billion dollars would put all the main roads of the country in good conditio;n. Ass.uming that this is the nearest estimate that we can make of the. total cost, the Government, under this bill, would be required to raise 500 million dollars. It has also been estimated that it will require at least ten years to effect the improvement of the roads. Does any one think that to raise 500 million dollars during ten years will bankrupt the Gov­ernment? But if we need facts, let us take an example: Since the Spanish war the Government of the United States has ex­pended about 700 million dollars in the Philippine Islands, a period of about five years. Has that bankrupted the Government? We have also appropriated in the past ten years over 176 million dol­lars for the imprqvement of rivers and harbors. Notwithstand­ing these, and many other millions of expenditures, we have a surplus of 266 millions in the Treasury.

If it be granted that the appropriation asked for in this bill would prove a good investment, the argument that it will inaugu-

752 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 14,

·rate a policy which will bankrupt the G<?ve~ent is absolutely without force. That argument, Mr. Pres1dent, 1s made. whenever any proposition comes up that ~nv<?lves large ~xpend1tures. It was made when the idea of iielivermg the ma1l to the country people was before Congress. The RECORD was full of dire predic­tions of disaster. It was said that the Government could never stand the expenditure that would be necessary, but the idea pre­vailed and the cutting off of the expense of the old country post­office and star-route service, with the increased amount of postage canceled, has brought this service to the point of bearing a higher percentage of its own cost than any other branch of th~ postal system. It is ~lways .wise to b~ careful ip. the expenditure .of public money, but it IS a shortsig~t~d ~licy to .become :pa~nc­stricken simply because the proposition IS extensive. ThiS IS a great country, Mr. President, and any proposition for the benefit of the whole, as this is, must be extensive, but the same sound principles of Gov~rnmen~, wise ec~nomy, and g.e:t;eral good under­lie it that underlie any Simple busmess proposition. It must be dealt with in a broad-minded, comp~hensive. and public-spirited way and be subjeckd to the plain tests of ordinary business.

CONCLUSION.

Having dealt with this subject at greater length than I expected, and having given many of my reasons for advocating this meas­ure, it only remains to add, in behalf of the rural people of the State that I in part represent, and of the country at large, whose interests and prosperity are the mainspring of my public life and ambition, that we are expecting the best atthehandsofCongress. With each succeeding day the sentiment for national aid is growing stronger. It is a reform that is bound to take place in time and, in my opinion, within the near future. Should it be defeated now it..._must ever be the hope of the people until it is accomplished. The call is from every farmhouse and country home in this broad land. It is the cry from Macedonia. Will we fail to heed it when nothing prevents? With all other good citizens of this great Republic I have an abiding faith in the jus­tice and patriotism of the Congress. of the United ~tates; and from its exalted character the best Wisdom of the nation may be confidently expected.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. What does the Senator from South Carolina wish done with his resolution?

Mr. LATIMER. I ask that it may lie on the table. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The ~enator from South Caro­

lina asks that the resolution may continue to lie on the table. Is there objection? The Chair hears none.

HOUSE BILL REFERRED. The bill (H. R. 6804) providing for the appointment of a cus­

toms appraiser at Pittsburg, Pa., was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on Finance.

INTERVENTION IN COLOMBIA. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair lays before the

Senate a resolution, which will be stated by title. The SECRETARY. Senate resolution No. 73, by Mr. GORMAN,

calling upon the President for certain information touching for­mer negotiations of the United States with the Government of New Granada, or Colombia, etc.

Mr. NEWLANDS. Mr. President. at the adjournment of the Senate last evening I was engaged in defending the statement made by me to the Senator from Wisconsin, the accuracy of which he questioned, that the President of the United States had prior to the creation of the Republic of Panama issued instruc­tions to our naval forces preventing Colombia from landing her troops upon her own soil for the purpose of suppressing a threat­ened domestic insurrection. I proved this by telegrams addressed by the Navy Department to the commanders of our fleets in At­lantic and Pacific waters, notifying them that the Colombian GoYernment was about to land troops and instructing them to prevent their landing.

This action was subsequently followed by the refusal to permit the Colombian Go-v-ernment to move its troops upon the railroad from Colon to Panama for the purpose of suppressing domestic disorder, and was followed later on by a dispatch of Mr. Hay to Mr. Beaupre, our charge d 'affaires at Bogota, informing him, in reply to a query from the Colombian Government, that the United States could not permit Colombia to land troops upon the Isthmus.

I shall now take up the general question as to the action of the President in October and November last and the relation of that action to our treaty obligations , to international law. and to the Constitution of the United St~tes. In taking up this subject I shall not enter into the field of contention as to faGts. I shall take the facts as the P:'esident has stated t hem.

I shall assume for the purpose of the argument that he is cor­rect in his insistence that a reasonable time for carrying out the construction of the canal a>Jross the Isthmus of Panama had not elapsed; that he was not b~u1:d by the terms of the Spooner Act to commence the Nicaragua proje~t or to take steps toward its

commencement so long as there was a reasonable prospect of in­augurating the Panama project.

I shall assume as correct his statement that the United States had a real grieTance against Colombia arising out of the rejection of the Hay-Herran treaty, and I shall assume that the civilized world-collective civilization, te use a term employed by the President-had a real grievance against Colombia for obstructing and delaying the march of civilization and the advance of progress. I shall assume that the United States stood as the trustee of civil­ization in voicing the protest of the civilized world against the action of Colombia.

And, admitting all this, I shall claim that the action of the President constituted a clear violation of the treaty of 1846, entered into between the United States and New Granada, now Colombia; that his premature recognition of the Panama Repub­lic before it demonstrated it3 ability to stand alone and to main­tain international obligations was a violation of international law, an~ that his movement with the armed forces of the' United States to prevent Colombia from landing upon her own territory for the purpose of suppressing domestic disorder was a declara­tion of war, made in violation of the Constitution of the United States, which gives to Congress alone the power of declaring war.

Now, Mr. President, as to the treaty of 1846, under which the United States secured all tha. rights it has upon the Isthmus of Panama, section 35 of that treaty contains two guaranties-one a guaranty of Colombia to the United States, the other a guaranty of the United States to Colombia. The guaranty of Colombia to the United States was that of the free and uninterrupted tran­sit across the Isthmus of Panama to the citizens and the products of the United States.

The language is: The Go>ernment of New Granada (now Colombia) guarantees to the Gov­

ernment of the United States that the right of way or transit ae1·oss the Isth­mus of Panama upon any modes of communication thn.t now exist or that mn.y be hereafter constructed shall be open and free to the Government and citizens of the United States. etc.

The guaranty of the United States to Colombia was the guar­anty of the neutrality ef the Isthmus, and the rights of sover­eignty and property of New G1;anada, now Colombia., over the Isthmus.

The language is: The United States guarantee positively and efficaciously to New Granada,

by the l?resent stipulation, the perfect neutrality of the beforeme-::1tioned Isth­mus, Wlth the view th:1t the free trnnsit from the one to the other sea. may not be interrupted or embarrassed in any future time while this treaty ex­ists; and in consequence t he United States also guarantee, in the sa.me man­ner, the rights of sover eignty and property which New Grann.da. has and posse~ses over the said territory.

The guaranty of sovereignty up~n the part of the United States was sufficiently broad in its terms to cover not only foreign inva­sion but domestic insurrection, for there is no limitation whatever upon the guaranty. But I shall assume as correct the interpre­tation put upon it by our Secreta,ries of State and our Attorneys­General, that this guaranty was only against foreign invasion; that the Isthmus was to be neutral territory; that it was not to be the scene of foreign contention, and that the obligation of the United States was to resist any attempt of any foreign power to land upon the Isthmus and make it the scene of contention.

If this be so, if it be true that the guaranty of sovereignty upon the part of the United States extended only against foreign invasion, then it must also be true that the sovereignty of Colom­bia was to be asserted over every inch of the isthmian territory in the maintenance of civil government and public order, in the suppression of domestic disorder.

Now, the treaty of 1846 simply provided for free and uninter­rupted transit to the citizens and products of the United States by modes of communication then existing or thereafter to be con­structed.

:Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President-1\fr. MORGAN. Does not the treaty--The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from N e­

vada yield to the Senator from Wisconsin? Mr. NEWLANDS. Certainly. Mr. SPOONER. The Senator from Alabama was ab~ut to

propound an inquiry. Mr. MORGAN. Does not the treaty of 1846 include the right

of transit to citizen::.; of the United States on the same terms as if they were citizens of Colombia?

Mr. NEWLL'toiDS. Oh, yes. Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President-The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Nevada

yield to the Senator from Wisconsin? • Mr. NEWLANDS. Certainly. Mr. SPOONER. Does the Senator from Nevada contend that

we have no treaty right now to protect the freedom of transit across the Isthmus?

Mr. NEWLANDS. Does the Senator m'3an treaty rights under the treaty of 1846?

1904. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 753 Mr. SPOONER. Does the Senator from Nevada deny that the

United States has to-day the treaty right to-protect the freedom of transit across the Isthmus?

Mr. NEWLANDS. There is nothing in the treaty of 1846 which gives that right. The United States Government has the right to protect its citizens and the property of its citizens; but it is only by reason of -that general right that it can exercise any powers within the sovereignty of Colombia. If the United States can not exercise that right outside of this treaty, then it has no such right under this treaty.

· Mr. SPOONER. IftheSenatorwillpermitme, the Government of New Granada, under that treaty, as I read it, guaranteed to the United States Government, as well as to its citizens, the right of way or transit across the Isthmus. In consideration of that we made ceTtain guaranties, which we have kept through many years. Does the Senator from Nevada contend that a failure of the Government of Colombia to maintain its guaranty deprived us of our right to uninterrupted transit across the Isthmus?

Mr. NEWLANDS. Not at all. Mr. SPOONER. Very well. Then I recur to the question­Mr. NEWLANDS. The only question is as to the method by

which we could assert that right. Mr. SPOONER.· No; I am dealing now with the right, not

with the method. I recur to the question which I put to the Senator. Does he deny that under the treaty of 1846, by whicb, in article 35, Colombia guaranteed to the United States the right of way or transit for the Gove1·nment and its citizens across the Isthmus, we still have that treaty right to freedom of transit across the Isthmus? I confine my question merely to the freedom of transit, and I should like to have the SBnator answeL · Mr.NEWLANDS. IwillanswertheSenator. Colombiacould not deprive this Government or its citizens of ~he right of transit.

Mr. SPOONER. That, then, is b~caus~ we have the right of transit.

Mr. NEWLANDS. Yes; we hav-'. the right of transit. :Mr. SPOONER. Then I understand tre Senator to admit (and

my proposition is a narrow one) that we possess as ~ Government, for the Government and for our people, under the treaty of 1846, the right of way or transit across ·!;ht Isthmus. The Senator ad­mits t!lat?

:Mr. NEWLANDS. Certainly. Bnt I do not admit the Sena­tor's contention that by reason of the existence of that right we have the 1'ight and the power to land our troops upon Colombian soil and usurp her sovereignty ~nd exercise her powers of sup­pressing domestic disorder.

Mr. SPOONER. That is entirely another thing. Mr. DANIEL. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a ques­

tion? :Mr. NEWLANDS. Certainly. Mr. DANIEL. The right of our troops and citizens of tran­

sit across the territory of Co 1om bia they accorded to us in a treaty . in consideration of a provision in that treaty that we should guar­antee the sovereignty of Colombia.

Mr. SPOONER. I answer yes. 1\fr. DANIEL. I supposed that would be the reply. I ask the

Senator from Nevada whether or not in his judgment the method taken by the United States to prevent Colombian troops from going to the transit was a recognition of the sovereignty of that country or an insult to it and an invasion of it?

:Mr. NEWLANDS. Clearly tbe latter. I will say in response to the Senator from Virginia that the treaty does not give the right to the Government of the United States in express terms to land its troops upon the Isthmus of Panama or to move its troops upon the Isthmus of Panama or to use its troops upon the Isthmus of Panama.

The right of transit was gi-ven both to the Government and to its citizens. I assume that under that right the Government of the United States could move its troops across that line of transit on the way to California, for instance, and with a peaceful pur­pose, so far as Colombia was concerned. But certainly no right was given to the Government of the United States to land upon the Isthmus with a purpose hostile to the sovereignty of Colombia and for the purpose of usurping in any degree her sovereignty or the exercise of her powers.

Recollect it was Colombia's guaranty, and, assuming, contrary to the fact, that there was a breach of that guaranty; assuming that as a result either of Colombia's actions or of public disorder and revolution there, -the transit of the Government of the United States or its citizens was interrupted, what was the remedy of the Government of the United States? Under this very treaty and under the law of nations its remedy was to p1·esent its griev­ance for the breach of Colombia's guaranty and to claim redress and compensation, and if neither redress nor compensation was given, then, and then only, would there be just cause of war, for

XXXVTI1-48

by the very-provisions of this treaty in the c1ose of article 35, sub­ill vision 5, it was declared:

If, unfortunately, any of the articles contained in this treaty should be violated or infringed in any way whatever, it is expressly stipulated that neither of the two contracting parties shall ordain or authorize any acts of reprisal, nor shall declare war against the other on complaints of injuries or damages, until the said party considering itself offended shall .have laid before the other a statement of such injuries or damages, veri_fied by compe­tent proofs, demanding justice and satisfaction, and the same shall ha>e been denied, in violation of the laws and of international right.

So here we have in this treaty, upon which all our rights on the Isthmus are based, a declaration of the principle now so all-per­vading of the peaceful adjustment of difficulties between nations, and a solemn dec.1aration upon the part of both of the parties to this treaty that if either one COJiliilitted a breach of the treaty the other should make complaint of injnries to the offending party and should claim redress, justice. and satisfaction. and that there should be no cause of war until they were refused.

So here is a plain provision guarding against the armed asser­tion by either power of its right under this contract and a provi­sion that the offended party sha!lmake complaint against the of­fending party, verified by proo-?, and redress shall be denied before a cause for war can exist.

Now, upon the part of the United ~tates the guaranty was the neutrality of the Isthmus; that the Isthmus should not be the scene of contention for foreign uatioilS; that the United States would protect the Isthmus against the armed invasion of foreign nations. Had the United Siates failed to keep that guaranty, what would have been tbe mode of redress under this ve1-ytreaty to be pursued by Colombia? She would have to make her state­ment of the breach of the guaranty and make her claim for jus­tice and satisfaction, and she would have no cause of war until redress was refused.

Now, then, ,he President of the 'C'nited States ba"'e5 his action, first, upon our treaty 1.'ights: second, upon our national interests, and, thil·d, upon the inteTests of collective civilization. As to our treaty rights, whilst h<7 admits that there is not a word in the treaty regarding the ~oneession for the building of a future Panama Canal, hs cl~.ims that the spil'it of the treaty required Colombia not only to permit free transit over any existing modes of commmrication, but requirt3d her to sanction the construction of this particular mode of communication and to sancti.on it in the terms dictated by the United States witJ:wutthe crossing of a ' t ,, or. the dotting of an "i/' and he clai.ms that by failing to do this Colombia b1·oke the spirit of the treaty and that this constituted a breach of the treaty, j ostifying the United States in armed resistance to Colombia's sovereignty.

Mr. Pl·esident, we will assume that the spiritofthetreatycalled for the grant of this <'On ~ession. in the ve1-y terms called for by the United States. We '!Fill assume not only that its spirit but that its letter called for it, that the treaty in very terms provided tbat this canal should be constructed by the Government of the United States and that the concession sbould be granted subsequently to the United States, giving it a right to build this very canal upon the very terms provided for in the Hay-Herran trea:;y,

Mr. MORGAN. The Senator is now spea1ring of the treaty of 1846?

Mr. NEWLANDS. Yes; and we will assume that in breach of that obligation Colombia refused to grant the concession. What, then, was the remedy of the United States? To make war? To resist Colombia's sovereignty over her territory? To aid domes­tic insurrection? To prevent her troops from landing upon isth­mian soil for the pmpose of suppressing it and maintaining public order? No. Under the very terms of this treaty--

Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President-. Mr. NEWLANDS. One momfJ:lt. Under the very terms of

this treaty it was the duty of the Government of the United States to present its complaint to Colombia and demand" justice and satisfaction," with a clear, calm, and unequivocal statement of its case, and to await her refusal before taking aggressive and armed and warlike action.

1\fr. CARMACK. The treaty of 1846 required that. Mr. NEWLANDS. The treaty of 1846 required that in express

terms. Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a ques­

tion'( Mr. NEWLANDS. Certainly. . , Mr. SPOONER. I ask it not in any controversial spirit at all.

Does the Senator contend as a fact or in fact that any troops sent by Colombia to be landed on the Isthmus of Panama p1'ior to the recognition of the Republic of Panama were prevented by the United States from being landed on the Isthmus?

Mr. NEWLANDS. No; not as a matter of fact, I believe. Mr. MORGAN. May I inten-upt the Senator from Nevada?

754 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY li,

I hope the Senator will complete that line of argument before he turns his attention to anything else.

1\Ir. NEWLANDS. I was about to complete it. Instructions were given to our naval commanders in those waters notifying them that the Government of Colombia was about to send its troop to the J sthmus and commanding them to prevent their landing, and the only reason why Colombian troops were not met in the harbqr of Colon by the armed re istance of the United States was that the commander of the Nashville did not receive the telegram until after the landing had been made.

Then, pursuing the spirit of t~at telegram, he forbade the forces of Colombia access to the railroad, the creature of the con­ce sion of Colombia: forbade the Government of Colombia from moving its troops from Colon, a place of peace, to Panama, the seat of insurrection, for the purpose of suppressing public dis­order there. And here again was a violation of Colombia's rights under this treaty.

Mr. SPOONER. Will the Senator permit me to ask him an-other question? ·

Mr. NEWLANDS. Certainly. Mr. SPOONER. Which does the Senator claim was the act of

war, the sending of the telegram or the forbidding of troops to land? Mr. NEWLA.NDS. The whole action of the President­Mr. SPOONER. Oh. Mr. NEWLANDS. From beginning to end, prior to and sub­

sequent to the recognition of the Republic constituted a declara­tion and acts of war.

:Mr. SPOONER. The Senator declines to file a bill of particu-lars here, Mr. President.

Mr. NEWLANDS. I do. Mr. SPOONER. I think he is wise. Mr. NEWLANDS. The Senator from Wisconsin has asked

me whether as a matter -of fact prior to the recognition of the Republic of Panama the United States prevented Colombia from landing her troops, and I have shown how that catastrophe was avoided simply by the fact that the commander of the Nashville did not receive his telegram in time.

Mr. SPOONER.. But the catastrophe that was avoided never ha-ppened.

Mr. NEWLANDS. Now, I wish to go on withreferencetothe action of the commander of the Nashville at that time. The gen­erals commanding these Colombian forces were denied the right to move the troops over the railroad, which was the beneficiary of a concession made by Colombia. The very instrument of civi­lization created there by the grant of Colombia for the ~nefit of the world was to be made the instrument of Colombia's undoing, in violation of the express terms of the concession itself, which gave Colombia the power and the right, without compensation, to move her troops over that railroad for governmental purpo es and for the purpose of suppressing disorder, and in violation of a later concession for the construction of a ship canal, granted to the Pan­ama Canal Company, of France, in which Colombia reserved clearly and distinctly the right to move her troops and her police force over the canal without compensation, and also over the auxiliary railway, this very railway which at that time had been secured by the Panama Canal Company.

The concession to the Panama Railroad Company reads as fol­lows:

ARTICLE XIX.

In compensation for these exemptions the com:pany binds itself to trans­port gratuitously and without the Government havmg to pay anything, either for freight or for any other cause, the troops, chiefs and officers, and their equipage, ammunition, armament, clothing, and all similar effects that may belong tohare or may be destined for the immediate service of the Govern­ment oft e Republic, or of the State of Panama.

The concession to the French Panama Canal Company reads as follows:

'l'he company shall carry gratis through the canal, or on the auxiliary railway, the men destined for the service of the nation, for the service of the State through whose territory the canal may pass, or for the service of the police, with the object of guarding against foreign enemies or for the pres­ervation of public order, and shall also transport gratis the baggage of such men, their war materials, armanent, and clothing which they may need for the service assigned to them.

So the Government of the United States, by its action at Colon, actually forbade the concessionaires of Colombia, these people whose only right to be there existed by virtue of Colombia's grant, to carry out the very terms of their grants requiring them to give the Government the transportation that was necessary for the moving of troops essE1]1tial to the preservation of public order.

Now, Mr. President, I will assume for the purpose of argument that the President's contention is right, that Colombia had no moral right to deny the consummation of the Hay-Herran treaty, that to refuse to grant that concession was an offense against civilization, and that wherever a nation so exercises its sover­eignty as to block the civilization of the world and the advance

of commerce it is the right of the nations of the world to bring the recalcitrant state to terms.

We will grant. for the sake of argument, that that is a principle of international law, and we will grant also that by reason of the Monroe doctrine the Government of the United States was not called to bring about the concert of the civilized nations upon this subject· that it stood on this continent as the tru tee of civilization, to voice civilization's rights ~nd redress civilizations wrongs.

What is the method to be pursued according to the principles of international law in any such controversy? A clear, calm, unequivocal statement is made to the offending nation of the grievance of civilization; argument, persuasion, and entreaty are exhausted; methods of arbitration are suO'gested; methods of friendly treaty are suggested, and only in the last resort is vio­lence employed.

If, then, this was the right of civilization; if, then this wa the right of the concert of nations acting in the interest of civiliza­tion, this was the right, and the only right, of the United States as the trustee for civilization. If civilization had such a griev­ance why did not the President of the United State voice it to Colombia? Where will you find any evidence of an expression of the protest of civilization against her action? •

Why, Mr. Pre ·ident. the rejection by the Colombian Congress was not complete until the end of October. It is not contended for a moment that dm·ing that period the protest of civilization was voiced by the United States, nor was it voiced immediately afterwa1:ds. The protest of civilization was first voiced after war was declared and waged and after the offending State has been spoliated of her territory.

I ask, then, if the President of the United States proceeded ac­cording to the orderly and deliberate methods of international law before iutt.rvention can be justified against a recalcitrant state in the interest of collective civilization?

And now we come to the recognition of the Republic of Pan­ama. I grant that the recognition of governments is purely an Executive function. I do not claim that the President of the United States in recognizing Panama was guilty of any infrac­tion of the Constitution of the United States.

I do claim that he was guilty of a violation of the law of nations in recognizing a government whose stability had not been e tab­lished; whose ability to stand alone had not been proved; whose ability to maintain international obligations had not been demon­strated, and whose only source of strength was that the recogniz­ing power stood there with the armed forces of the United States determined to support and maintain it.

Read the message of President :McKinley regarding Cuba­President McKinley, whose policy the present Executive prom­ised to follow. Read his declaration of what international law demands upon this subject, and you will find him sustaining the calm, slow, deliberative methods pursued by Jackson years be­fore regarding Texas and uniformly pursued by the Presidents of the United States regarding recognition of South American republics, with whose aims and purposes we were in sym­pathy.

And yet here, upon the mere assertion of a junta, so-called, composed of a few men, and contained in a telegram addres~ed to the President of the United States · within thirty-six hours after the meeting of the conspirators against public order, the Republic of Panama is recognized and Colombia is forbidden to land a sol­dier upon isthmian soil.

Now, Mr. President, I contend that the entire action of the President constituted a declaration of war and his acts were acts of war. War was not only declared, it exited. What was the declaration? A declaration sent by the Secretary of the Navy to the commanders of our forces prior to the insuiTection, prior to the creation of this feeble Republic, informing them that the Government forces were about to land and instructing them to resist their landing. What Government forces? The forces of Colombia? Land where? Upon the Isthmus, her own territory, of which she was in undisputed po session and control and over which she exercised the undisputed sovereignty-a sovereignty which we, by solemn treaty stipulation, had promised to main­tain by force of arms, if necessary.

It is true no blood was shed. It was a bloodless war but it was no less an effective war, more effective than if the Colombian troops had landed upon that soil and as the result of a sanguinary conflict lasting two or three or four years the war had been ter­minated with the same results.

It was a successful war, which accomplished the segregation of Colombia's territory, raped from her the territory that belonged to her, and transferred it to a new sovereignty. Would it not have been war had the President of the United States, in continu­ation of that instruction, directed the armed forces of the United States in those waters to land upon Colombian soil-the conti-

1904. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 755 nental soil-and to march to Bogota and sweep the country from end to end in a war of conquest?

Mr. DOLLIVER. Mr. President--The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Nevada

yield to the Senator from Iowa? :Mr. NEWLANDS. Certainly. Mr. DOLLIVER. 1 underntood the Senator from Nevada to

interpret the treaty of 1846 in such a way 3:s to requiTe t~e -q-nit:ed States to guarantee and defend the sovereignty and tern tonal m-tegrity of the United States ~f C?lombia. . .

I call his attention to the citations made of the opimons of Sec­retary Cass and Secretary Seward, who distinctly-and I .think the holding has been uniform-J:eld th~t ~hat gua:r~ty did not relate to revolutions and secess10ns Wlthm the terntory of Co­lombia, but was a gua.ranty relating ~olely to foreign interven­tion against the integrity of Colombia. Is that the Senator's understanding or did I misunderstand the Senator?

Mr. NEWLANDS. I fear the Senator from Iowa did not he~r all of my remarks. What I did say was that the guaranty was m terms a general guaranty of sovereignty, and .by its te.rms. it might be const;ued as a ~~ranty no~ only agamst foreign m­vasion but aga1nst domestic rnsurrection.

But I added that I accepted the interpretation put upon it by our Secretaries of State and our Attorney-General, to the effect that it was a guaranty against foreign invasion, and I contended that if that was the only guaranty, then ~he clear inte~tion of the treaty was that Colombia should exerCise the .soyereigntY: of her own territory and should take care of domest~c msurrection and disorder. So we are not far apart on that subJect.

Mr. DOLLIVER. The Senator and I agree so far that the Sec­retaries of State have uniformly, if I am couectly advised, held that our obligations to protect the State of Colombia against for­eign attack not only had no relation~ domestic insurre9tio?.within its boundaries, but was accompamed also by treaty ~Iabihty and obligation upon the United States to prot~ct the tr~nsit.across the Isthmus against either invasion or domestic or formgn dlSturbance of the peace in the State of Panama. Does the Senator concede that also?

Mr. NEWLANDS. No, I do not concede that there is any pro­vision in this treaty calling upon the United States to protect the free transit of her Government and her people across the Isthmus. What I do contend is that this treaty provides that Colombia her­self shall guarantee to her that right. Upon a failure of that treaty guaranty, it would be. the right of the U?ited States u?der this treaty to present her gnevance to Colombia before makmg a declaration of war.

Mr DOLLIVER. I do not dispute that- · Mr: NEWLANDS. We could only make a declaration of war

~ after a denial of redress for the grievance. Mr DOLLIVER. But I call the Senator's attention to the fact

that ·Mr. Seward, who seems to have gone v.ery fully ?nto ~he question, was of the opinion that all our dut'f m connectio!l Wlth Colombia under this treaty waa accompamed by a continuous duty of preserving that transit against being the arena of war­fare or disturbance of the peace.

Mr. NEWLANDS. It is not necessary for me to enter into the question as to what the right or the duty of the Government of the United States was as to the protection of that transit, as to whether or not it was to simply rely upon the guaranty of Co­lombia and to seek redress for a breach of that guaranty, or whether it had the independent right or duty, with the consent of Colombia. to protect the railroad against a domestic insurrec­tion a.s well as a foreign foe.

That is not necessary. All I contend is that, under this very treaty, Colombia waR left sovereign ove! that territory; her sov­ereignty recognized; that hers was the nght and the duty to take care of domestic disorder; that, in addition to that, she had a right to call upon the Government of the United S~ates, under the interpretation put upon the treaty by our Secretaries of State and our Attorneys-General, to preserve and protect the neutrality of the Isthmus and to guard that Isthmus against the invasion of any foreign foe.

Mr. MORG~I\.N. Mr. President--The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Nevada

yield to the Senator from Alabama? Mr. NEWLANDS. Yes, sir. . Mr. MORGAN. I desire the Senator to yield to me that I may

read a very brief extract from the message of President Cleveland on this very subject. Mr. Cleveland was discussing this question in his first annual message in 1885. He says:

Emergencies growing out of civil war in the United States of Colombia demanded of the Government at the beginning of this Administration the employment of armed force to fulfill its guaranties under the thirty-fifth article of the treaty of 1846, in order to keep the transit open across the Isth­mus of Panama. :Desirous of exercising only the. powers expressly reserved to us by the treaty, and mindful of the rights of Colombia, the forces sent to

the Isthmus were instructed to confine their action to "positively and effica­ciously" preventing the transit and its accessories from being "interrupted or embarrassed."

The execution of this delicate and ~sponsible task neces~arily involved police control where the local authority was temporarily powerle s, but always in aid of the sovereignty of Colombia.

Mr. NEWLANDS. Mr. President, I was considering the ques­tion whether the action of the President constituted a declaration of war. .

Mr. CARMACK. Before the Senator passes from that subject I wish to call his attention to the following extract from a tele­gram sent by Secretary Hay to Mr. Ehrman, our consul at Colon, instructing him as follows:

When you are satisfied that a de facto government, r epublican in f.orml and without substantial oppcsition from its own people, has been e tablishea in the State of Panama, you will enter into relations with it as the responsi­ble government of the territory and look to it for all due action to protect the persons and pr~p~rty of citizens ?f the Unit~d ~tates and . to. keep op~n the isthmian transit m accordance WJth the obligations of exiSting tl:eat1es governing the r elation of the United States to that territory.

In other-words, the construction that Secretary Hay put upon that treaty of 1 46 was that Colombia was unde1· obligation to keep open this transit; that she had a ~ght and was ?-er~elf obligated by the treaty to protect the transit, and that obligation of the treaty of 1 46 descended to the new State of Panama.

Mr. NEWLANDS. I also call attention to the fact that if the guaranties made by th~ UJ?ited Sta~s as to ~e .sovei:eignty of Colombia were guaranties srmply agamst foreign mvaswn of the Isthmus, so also the right and obligation of the Unite~ States _re­garding the transit itlself were simply to defend agamst for~Ign invasion· if the one is true the other is true; and that the nght and the 'obligation to protect both the Isthmus and the transit against local and domestic disorder devolved upon Colombia.

Now, as to the declaration of war. When I was intenupted by the Senator from Iowa [:.M:r. DOLLIVER] I was assuming that the President of the United States, in addition to the instructions given to the commanders of our naval forces in Atlantic and Pacific waters with reference to the prevention of the landing of Colombian troops upon the isthmian soil, had extended those instructions by commanding the marines to land upon the con­tinental soil of Colombia, to march to Bogota, and to sweep the country from end to end.

We will assume that that had been done and that the display of force had been so overawing as to prevent any resistance from Colombia; we will assume that the force was so overwhelming, the display of power was so great that the Colomhian forces re­treated beforce our forces wherever they advanced and that not a drop of blood was shed, would the Senator say that there was no state of war?

Would the Senator say that there was no declaration of war? Would the Senator say, as the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. SPOONER] said regarding the delay in the receipt of these instruc­tions, that it was a catastrophe that had been averted? So I con­tend that the entire action of the President constituted a declara­tion of war and constituted war itself.

What does the Constitution of the United States provide re­garding the power to declare war? Does it give that power to the Executive? No. It says that Congress alone shall have power to declare war. The framers of our Constitudon realized the danger of putting this great power in the hands of a strong or a violent or a headstrong man, and they determined to commit that power to a deliberative body, representing the entire people, where the processes of debate secure careful consideration and deliberation. So the Congress of the United States alone can declare war; and yet here there has not only been a war declared but a war waged and a war succe sful-war declared and waged and successfully consummated by the President of the United States. ·

Do you remember the Venezuela difficulty, in which President Cleveland was asserting the Monroe doctrine against England, who was there seeking, through the gradual extension of her boundary, to obtain an 1mwarranted possession and control over American soil? When England was refusing or delaying the sub­mission of this controversy to arbitration, what did President Cleveland do?

Did he land American troops upon Venezuelan soil, fix the b\)undary of England's possession there, and forbid her to march her people over it? No. He exhausted diplomatic negotiation. Letter after letter was written; entreaty, argument. persuasion were exhausted. Then what did he do? He submitted the con­troversy to the Congress of the United States, which had the sole power to determine whether this coursa persisted in should lead to war as a result of the maintenance of the Monroe doctrine.

And when, in CUba, Spain was pursuing a career of crimeand cruelty, oppressing the people almost to the point of extinction in a war in which the sympathies of the entire American people were with the oppressed Cubans, when the people of this count1·y were hotly pressing on to decisive action, what did President McKinley

756 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 14,

do? Before resorting to armed intervention in behalf of collect­ive civilization, did he not voice the protest of collective civiliza­tion in the diplomatic correspondence with Spain?

Were not negotiation, entreaty, persuasio:a all exhausted be­fore he finally took action? And what was his action? An armed intervention in Cuba by the sole decree of the Executive of the Government? Oh, no. The matter was submitted to Congress, and Congress, deeming that diplomatic negotiation had been exhausted, believing that all the diplomatic methods and proce­dures leading to and justifying intervention had been exhausted, declared war as an act of intervention in behalf of collective civ­ilization, and that war was pursued to a final issue. Now, 1\fr. President, we are asked what is to be done.

Mr. FULTON. Mr. Pre ident-The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Nevada

yield to the Senator from Oregon? Mr. NEWLANDS. Certainly. Mr. FULTON. I wish to ask the Senator from Nevada this

question: Suppose before there had been any disturbance in Pan­ama, while Colombian sove1·eignty existed there unquestionably, England had gone on the Isthmus and taken posse sion of that territory what would have been the duty of the President of the United States under the stipulation requiring us to guarantee the neutrality and by which we do guarantee the neutTality of the Isthmus? What, under those conditions, would have been the duty of the President?

Mr. NEW LANDS. I am not prepared to say now as to whether the armed aggression of England would be such an attack upon property rights as would justify the President in making a de­fense-a defensive war is a different thing from an aggres ive war-or whether the circumstances would be such as to compel the submission of the matter to Congress.

It is one thing for the President of the United States to execute the laws of the United States, even when those laws mean the armed defense of the citizens and the property of the United States; it is another thing to declare and maintain an aggressive war.

Mr. FULTON. The que tion I wish to ask the Senator is this: Would the Pre ident of the United States have been under an obligation, by reason of that stipulation guranteeing neutrality, to have taken any steps?

Mr. NEWLANDS. I am not prepared to answer that question at present.

Mr. DOLLIVER. If it will not disturb the Senator­Mr. NEWLANDS. Certainly not. Mr. DOLLIVER. I have not been able to understand what

war on the Isthmus he is talking about. Mr. NEWLANDS. I am afraid that the Senator has been

away again--Mr. DOLLIVER. No; I have been here. Mr. NEWLANDS. I have covered that matter and I must

decline to cover it again, as it simply involves a repetition of what I have already said.

Mr. DOLLIVER. If there ha.s been any actual war, it appears that the Colombian Government does not know of it for they have a minister here now, and always have had.

Mr. NEWLANDS. I will say to the Senator from Iowa that I have pursued that matter fully, and I must decline to enter into it again, a.s it would simply involve repetition. If the Senator will do me the honor to read my remarks in to-morrow's RECORD he will understand my position.

I will simply add, Mr. President, to what I have already said, that if Colombia had ratified the Hay-Herran treaty and after­wards this insurrection had arisen in Panama, I ask what the action of the Executive would have been then. ·would he have forbidden Colombian troops to land upon isthmian soil for the purpose of suppressing domestic disorder? So that the real griev­ance was the rejection of the treaty by Colombia. The President regarded that rejection as a cause of war, of a just war, to be maintained by this country in the interest of collective civilization.

Now, we are asked, what are we to do about this? The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. ALDRICH] made the query yesterday, after the eloquent speech of the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. CARMAcK], What are we to do about it? The Republic of Pan­ama now exists-granted, it exists-by virtue of our strength and power, and not by virtue of its own; but it exists. Reject this treaty, and what then hal>pens? Will the United States then permit the Colombian Government to land its troops upon isth­mian soil, suppre s domestic disorder, and destroy that Republic, created by the action of our own Executive?

I admit that this is a serious question. I should hesitate to take any action which would turn over the people of Panama to the cruelty of the Colombian Government when the action of the people of Panama has been the result of the sustaining action of our own Chief Executive. I should hesitate about it, lawle sand unconstitutional though it bas been. But it does seem to me that there is a basis upon which this entire matter can be accommo-

dated, and that is by a prompt disavowal by the Congress of the United States of the acts of the President as unauthmized, as un­warranted, either by our treaties, by international law, or by the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. QUARLES. Mr. President, I should like to ask the Sena­tor a question there, if he will permit me.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Nevada yield to the Senator from Wisconsin?

~fr. NEWLANDS. Certainly. ~fr. QUARLES. Does the Senator think that tbe Senate, as

one branch of the legislative power, can pass a resolution of cen­sure upon the Executive in the exercise of a purely Executive dis­cretion? Can one coordinate branch of the Government sit in criticism upon another, so that we would be authorized to pass a re olution of censure upon the Executive?

Mr. NEWLANDS. I will state to the Senator from Wisconsin that it is unnecessary for me now to consider that question of power, as I made no such suggestion. My suggestion wa! that the Congress of the United States, whose con titutional power had been invaded by the Executive, should disavow his act .

1\fr. QUARLES. Mr. President, I should like to have the Sena- · tor enlighten the Senate as to what power Congress has over the subject of thB recognition of a new state? Is it not an Executive discretion? Has the Conb'Tess, sitting here as a legislative body, anything to do with that?

~fr. TELLER. What is a discretionary question? Mr. QUARLES. The Executive discretion as to whether a gov­

ernment should be recognized. .And, to make my question more pointed, I should like the Senator to indicate to the Senate what act of the President it is that he thinks Congress should disavow. That will bring the legal question exactly down to the point where we can comprehend it.

Mr. NEWLANDS. I should disav<'w all of his acts that are in violation of the treaty of 1846-and I have enumerated them­that are in violation of intetnationallaw-and I have enumerated them-and in violation of the Constitution of the United States­and I have enumerated them. What happens 1fhen that dis­avowal is made?

Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President--The PRESIDING OFFICER (1\fr. FULTON in the chair). Does

the Senator from Nevada yield to the Senator from Wisconsin? Mr. NEWLANDS. Certainly. Mr. SPOONER. I appeal to the Senator from Nevada to in­

troduce such a re olution .in order that there may be developed here in a practical way a line of action on his proposition.

Mr. NEWLANDS. I will take the appeal of the Senator from Wisconsin under consideration.

Mr. SPOONER. That is the trouble with it all. Mr. NEWLANDS. I am now making a suggestion to the dom­

inant party, the party in control of the Government, the party whose action will decide this question, and I am insisting upon it that the Congre ~ of the United States, whose constitutional power has been im·aded. honld disavow tbe~e unauthorized acts, just as clearly and unequivocally a it wonld di avow them if these acts had been performed by the nanLl officers of the United States in Atlantic and Pacific water withont the command of the President. They were equally in violation of onr cou racts, of international law, and of constitntionalla w. whether perform £:>d by the order of the President or without theonlerof tbe Pre:-::i,lent. If tho e officers had, without the direction of the Presiden~

taken this action, and as the result of that action Co lorn bia b. ad been dismembered, her territory segregated, and a new sover­eigntycreated, with possession and control over a part of her ter­ritory, I ask whether Congress would not have disavowed their acts? And they are equally subject to disavowal when done by the President of the United States, acting in violation of treaty obligation, of international law, and of constitutional prohibition.

You ask what will happen upon disavowal. Disavowal is a well-known principle of international law. Whenever the agents or officials of a country commit an unauthorized wrong against another country, disavowal is always declared. That is a part of the redress.

Now, then, what is the remaining redress? I can not tell whether or not the status quo ante can be restored. I can not tell whether or not it ought to be restored, judging it from the stand­point of Panama herself. I am not inclined to think that the people of Panama have no just grievance against Colombia. I do not contend that they did not have the right of revolution and that revolution was not justified by the action of Colombia, re­pressive of her energies.

My sympathies are rather with Panama than against her. I am not talking now of the action of Panama or of the revolution­i ts there. I am talking of the action of the Government of the United States through the sole instrumentality of its Executive, without the sanction of Congress. I say we can consider the ques­tion whether or not the status quo ante can be restored, and that

·,

·1904. DONGRESSIONAL .REOORD- SENATE. 757 will involve the taking of testimony and involve negotiation with tions of his strong mind and his legal education, came to the Colombia and with the Republic of Panama, for it is there to-day point in his speech where he was unwilling to admit that one e:risting and existing by our force and our might, and we may nation could bar the wayto the progress of colle~tive civilization. well hesitate to take such action as would turn her over to con- I am at a loss to 'know, for I am not quick of apprehensio~ quest and disorder. what the Senator meant, unless he meant that if the Republic of

I admit that; but there is a resting place. The Colombian· Colombia should be unduly recalcitrant-that is the word, and it Government is conducting itself with rare prudence and madera- was an apt word, which the Senator used-the United States as tion. Mindful of its ti·eaty obligations, though our Government the representative of the collective civilization of the wo1:ld is unmindful of them, its President is stating its grievance under should, in the interest of the world, cut its way, law or no law: the treaty of 1846 to the Goven;l!D.ent of the United States, pre- except the mere question of damages--senting it, verified by proofs, at the State Department exhaust- Mr. TELLER. .Mr. President-ing argument and persuasion and entreaty, making no display of Mr. SPOONER. I am talking now to the Senator from Neyada. force, the Colombian forces halting upon the boundary line be- Mr. TELLER. I wish to interrupt the Senator from "\Viscon-tweenhercontinental ten-itory and her isthmian tenitory, re pect- sin long enough to ask him a question. · ing the power and the strength and the vigor of the United States, Mr. SPOONER. In a moment. pleading for a peaceful adjustment of this controversy, of this Mr. TELLER. Inamoment. Iwillnotundulyinterrnptbim. breach of the treaty of 1846-this breach which is apparent, if Mr. SPOONER. Oh, no. The Senator from Colorado never in nothing else, in the failure of the United States to present her does. I am at a loss to know what the Senator meant, unless that grievance, if she had any, in orderly form to the constituted the United States shall cut its way through the Isthmus of Pan­authorities of Colombia before taking aggressive measures. ama and unite the Atlantic and Pacific, leaving only to be deter-

Does that involve, will that involve, turning over Panama to the mined the question of damages to the proprietor-the sovereign mercies of a cruel sovereign? No. The end of it all may be that as proprietor-whose territory has been taken for use of the work. a result of negotiation the people of Panama may conclude, pro- Mr. TELLER. Mr. President--vided thecanalgoesthrough, tosubmitthemselvesagain toColom- The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wis-bian sovereignty. On the other hand, Colombia, viewing the consin yield to the Senator from Colorado? ao.tual condition, may consent to this segregation of the Isthmus Mr. MORGAN. Mr. President-upon compensation. Then the matter will be adjusted peacefully. Mr. TELLER. · I wish to ask the Senator from Wisconsin a

But suppose that Colombia refuses to do anything; that she question. ~ Iefuses to permit this .canal to be constructed; that she refuses Mr. SPOONER. Have I misstated the position of the Senator to do anything except to reassume her authority over Panama. from Nevada? Then it will be in the power of the United States to present her . Mr. NEW LANDS. I will state, in reply to the Senator from grievance, if she has any, to Colombia, to voice against Colombia Wisconsin, that I object to his term "international eminent do­the protest of collective civilization. Then, having exhausted main," because it is a new term. argument, persuasion, and entreaty, we can consider whether, I can not say that I object to it, but xather that I am not pre­under the principles of international law, we will make a decla- pared at present to accept it as an international term. Nor am I ration in our own interest and in the interest of collective civiliza- prepared to accept the President's phrase, "the rights of collect­tion against a recalcitrant state. And then the Congress of the ive civilization." It .may be that he has coined a phrase which United States can act, act under the sanction of the Constitution, will go into the books of international law and be a.ccepted as one act l.Jlder the sanction of the treaty of 1846, and act obediently of the tel'IDS of international law. I was simply pursuing the can­to the recognized principles of internationallaw4 tion which I think every man of .legal training ought to pursue

Mr. President, I ask permission to add as an appendix someqno- regarding the acceptance of new terms and new phrases. tations from documents. I do not think, however, that the Senator misapprehends the · The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair hears no objection course of my argument.

to the request of the Senator from Nevada. Mr. SPOONER. Not at all. Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President-- Mr. NEWLANDS. The entire argument was based upon the The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from K evada President's contention, first, that he was warranted in his action

yield to the Senator from Wisconsin? by a proper regard for the obligations of the treaty of 1846; sec-Mr. NEWLANDS. Certainly. I am through. and, that he was warranted in his action by the principles of in-MI:. SPOONER. I hardly know in what terms to couch the ternationallaw; third, that he was warranted in his action by the

observation which I am tempted to make to the Senator from Ne- aemands of collective civilization. and also that his action w.a.a vada-whether it should be in words of congratulation or other- warranted by the Constitution of the United States. I was meet­wise of his very specific indorsement of the proposition of inter- ing the President upon his own ground accepting the facts and national eminent domain, for that is what he has asserted. the reasons alleged by him, and not at all entering into the field ~fr. NEWLANDS. The right of eminent domain, 1et me re- of conb·oversy as to the facts or a"s to reasons for the action.

marktotheSenator,isto beexercisedaccordingtomethodsofpro- The Senator is familiar in law with an argument which admits cedure pointed out by law. The right of eminent domain, even the statement of facts made by the other side. in our own country, does not mean that you or I can seize our Mr. CARMACK. For the sake of the argument. neighbor 's 1and and apply it to our own uses. Mr. NEWLANDS. For the sake of the argument.

Mr. SPOONER. Then what does it mean as the Senator used it? Mr. SPOO~TER. Yes; but the Senator from Nevada came from Mr. NEWLANDS. It means to go into the courts of the na- the chaparral into the open field and announced a doctrine which

tion-- . has been proclaimed in this transaction, and when challenged Mr. SPOONER. Of course. about it has abandoned the open field and gone back into the cha-Mr. NEWLANDS. Ispeakofeminentdomaininourowncoun- pan-al and the brush.

ti-y, not in international law. It involves your going into court, Mr. TELLER. Mr. President--declruingtheusetowhichyouwishtosubjecttheproperty, show- 1\fr. SPOONER. I understood the Senator, of course, to be ing that it is a necessary public use, apd it involves also the ju- against the President. I expected that. I expected the Senator dicial determination of the value of the property taken. to contend that the President had violated the laws of the United

Mr. SPOONER. Does the Senator- - States, had violated the law of nations, had violated a treaty, Mr. NEWLANDS. If the Senator will permit me- had violated the Constitution, and had violated his oath. Of 1\Ir. SPOONER. Certainly. course that is the .attitude in this transaction of Senators who Mr. NEWLANDS. In international law, whilst there is no choose to be partisan rather than to be just. But the Senator can

great tribunal before which any nation of the world can be sum- not, if he spoke what he meant, escape from my suggestion that moned to answer for its misdeeds and offenses against civilization he indorsed one proposition in the President's message, and that .and with a view to exeTcising this doctririe of eminent domain, was the doctrine of international eminent domain. whose existence I am not prepared to admit, though the Senator Mr4 MORGAN. I thought that came fr~m the Pension Office. seems to think I do, the whole tendency of international law is I have not seen it in the President's message. to erect and constitute tribunals of peace to act between nations Mr. SPOONER. If the Senator will permit me to do him a b­and with a vie.w to rendering justice between nation and nation, solute justice, he did not think it came from the Pension Office. just as om· domestic courts do between man .and man. The inter- Mr. MORGAN. I thought so. I have heard .of it as coming llational court at The Hague, I suggest, is a court of that kind. from the Pension Office and I never saw anything like it in the

Mr. SPOONER. The Senator from Nevada, in the com:se of President's message. his observations, emerged from the chaparral and the bushes into Mr. TELLER. I think the Commissicmer of P ensions did sug-the open field where the world can see him, and declared, if his gest it. utterances meant anything, in f-avor of the principle of interna- Mr. SPOONER. That does not come from the P e11sion Office. :tionaleminent domain, because the Senator, driven by the opera- Mr. MORGAN. Will the Senator indulge m~ a question about

758 CONGRESSIONAL ·RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 14, .

the other branch of this subject-the interest of collective civili- It was the duty of every member of that Commission to speak zation and its right to be represented by the President of the his opinion and conviction through his signature to that report United States? I wish to a k the Senator whether, when we or as dissenting from that report, and the report came to the passed the Spooner law a very splendid law and one which has a Congress of the United States recommending the Panama route great deal of my personal affection though I had to fight it a as the better route for this country, signed by all the members long time before it O'ot into shape, he did not then suppose and of the Commission, including Professor Haupt. believe, and whether he does not yet believe, that we had opened Mr. :MORGAN. But if the Senator will allow me, if that re­a way for a canal acros the American Isthmus fully sufficient port came in that way and did not present the protest in writing, for the interests of collective civilization-at Nicaragua? of Mr. Haupt, made at the time he signed it, great inju tice has

:Mr. SPOONER. Mr. President, neither the Senator from Ala- been done to him and to the public. bama nor any other Senator was called upon to antagonize me or Mr. SPOONER. I knew Professor Haupt's father long ago. make sugge tion to me as to any provision in the canal act. Mr. MORGAN. I know him now.

Mr. MORGAN. I ha-ve exercised that privilege, Mr. President, Mr. SPOONER. I knew him long ago. I have not seen him in due order, and I stand by it. for many years.

1\Ir. SPOONER. Ch. no- Mr. MORGAN. I have. Mr. MORGAN. What has the Senator got to say to that? :Mr. SPOONER. Undoubtedly; but that does not affect either Mr. SPOONER. I say this: I stand by the provisions of the : the propriety or the substance of what I am about to ay. I wish

canal act. to say what I have to say on this particular subject without un-Mr . .MORGAN. Then, we have a canal way which nobody has just criticism upon Professor Haupt. Profe sor Haupt, being a

yet ob tructed _ and nobody has the power to obstruct except the member of that Commi sion, ought to h3tve expressed his convic-Congrass of the United States. tion in a public way when the report wa made.

Mr. SPOONER. I stand by the canal act. There is no provi- IfProfe orHaupt.afterlookingoverthewholesubject,thought sion in the canal act that was suggested to me by any man in the Panama route was not the better route for the United S~tes, thi Senate or out of it. he as an engineer, as a profe or as an officeholder, as a commis­

Mr. MORGAN. I did not claim to havesuggestedanything sioner;asaself-respectingman,andasagentlemanoughttohave to vou. said so. so that the world would have known.

Ji'Ir. SPOONER. No: the canal act was based upon the report Mr. MORGAN. I think it i due to Professor Haupt-- ' or the reports o= the G:>mm:s ion. The Commis ion Teported, Mr. SPOONER. Yes, something is due to him. It is not on fu·st, because 9f the extortionate price . demanded by the French the record. company-- Mr. MORGAN. He shall h~ve justice, and nothing more than

Mr. MORGAN. And for no other reason. justice. Within a few days, perhaps not more than till'ee or four, Mr. SPOONER. I will not ay that, because it would not be after that report was made: Profe sor Haupt appeared as a wit­

true, in my judgment. The Canal Commission first reported in ness before the committee, of which I then had the honor to be favor of the Nicaragua route. When the French company had chairman and swore to this reservation and in that way pub­reduced its demand from 109.000,000 to $40 000,000, the Com- lished it to the world. mission was reconvened to consider that change. Mr. SPOONER. On the record Mr. Haupt signed the unani-

Mr. CARMACK. Mr. President-- mous report-- · Mr. SPOONER. Pardon me for a moment. I will yield to the Mr. MORGAN. Oh, well!

Senator later. Whether the Commission was functus or not I do Mr. SPOONER. And since that has by magazine articles and not stop to inquire. I am dealing in what I say with the facts: , otherwise impeached it. If that attitude is satisfactory to Pro­not with the law. The Commission thu reconvened to consider fessor Haupt, it is satisfactory to me. But it misled me--the situation in the light of the reduced offer of the French com- Mr. CARMACK. Mr. President-pany, recommended unanimously-- The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator n·om Wis-

:M:r. MORGAN. No. cousin yield to the Senator from Tennessee? Mr. SPOONER. Yes. Mr. SPOONER. If the Senator will pardon me for a moment, Mr. MORGAN. No. the Senator from New York [Mr. DEPEW], I am informed by a Mr. SPOONER. Unanimously. note is anxious to go on. Mr. MORGAN. No. Mr. DEPEW. The note is not from me. Mr. SPOONER. When ! say" unanimously" I mean with the Mr. SPOONER. Well, it is from somebody. I do not know

concurrence of every member of the Commission, so far as the from whom it comes. And if the Senator from New York has papers showed and the w01•ld could know. anything to say I know he is anxious to say it and I am anxious

Mr. MORGAN. There was a protest filed there by one of the to hear it. And so, Mr. Pre ident, as far as I am concerned, I commi ~ioner against that act, and he said he did it only because abandon the floor now in favor of the Senator from New York. if he had failed to join in thireport he was satisfied they could de- Mr. DEPEW. Mr. President, I do not know who was my feat any canal. anonymous friend--

Mr. SPOONER. I do not like to criticise, nor will I, any man Mr. SPOONER. But yon ratify his act? [Laughter.] in private life who can not answer me here. I based what I say Mr. DEPEW. But I am very much gratified with what he did. upon what was exhibited to the world, caring nothing for any The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New York secret reservation of a given member of the Commission. is entitled to the floor.

Mr. MORGAN. I base what I say upon what has been pre- Mr. DEPEW. Mr. President, the most interesting and vitally sented to Congress by that Commis ion. important question to the American people is the construction of

Mr. SPOONER. Since the report of the Commission? the Isthmian Canal. There is absolute unanimity of opinion for Mr. MORGAN. No. I think it was contemporaneous with it. the work to be begun, prosecuted and completed at the earliest

I am not sure about that. pos ible moment. The opponents of the treaty are really aiding · Mr. SPOONER. Professor Haupt-for he is the gentleman to the enemies of the canal. If there ever has been a concert of

whom the Senator from Alabama alludes-had been appointed a action among any great railway corporations to defeat this most member of that Commission. He was charged by the appoint- beneficent wOI'k of commerce and civilization, I am not aware of ment under the law with all the duties and obligations which it; but -if such a combination does exist. then its allies and its re ted upon the individual members of that Commission. It was most efficient assistants are to be found among those who. under an expert Commission. It was to report to those of us in this any device or excuse, are endeavoring to defeat the treaty with House and the other who were not engineers upon the question the Repub]jc of Panama. as to which route. from the engineering standpoint and other Piercing the Isthmus of Darien is no new idea. It bas appealed standpoints, was the better route in the interest of the American to statesmen for hundreds Of year , and now, four cenrnries after people. Columbus sailed along the coast of the I thmus trying to find the

Mr. MORGAN. I wish to say, if the Senator will allow me, opening which would let him into the Pacific the completion of in re pect to Profes or Haupt, that he signed that protest at the his dream is near at hand. Charles V was the ablest ruler of his time he signed the report, and left it on the files of the Commis- century. The power of Spain under him and his successor in­sian. If they did not report it to Congress, as to which fact I am eluded Cuba and Porto Rico, territories on the Gulf of Mexico not certain in the first instance, it is a matter between them and and the Pacific Ocean, and the Isthmus of Darien and the Phil­Professor Haupt. ippine Islands. His knowledge of geography was limited because

Mr. SPOONER. Whether a public official, in whom are re- of the meager discoveries of his period. but he did see that here posed trust and confidence, as in this case they were reposed in was an opportunity for an eastern and we tern empire by connect­each of the members of the Comrills ion, could, with propriety, ing the two oceans, and set about energetically t<Jaccomplish the sign a report which they sent to Congress recommending a par- task. ticular route and sign a dis ent with the Commission is a ques- Before his plans had matured he was succeeded by his son, tion which I do not stop to discuss. that phenomenal bigot and tyt·ant, Philip II. He declared that it

-

1904. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. l759 was sacrilege to undo what God had created. and therefore wicked to cut through the mountains for a canal. For three· hundred years the wall of superstition built by this monarch pre­vented the union of the oceans. The initiative was with the United States, who e people are opposed to the opinions of King Philip, and believe the duty of man is to exploit, develop, utilize, and improve the wa te pla.ces of the world, the air, the water and the earth. As early as the Administration of John Quincy Adams, our statesmey. saw the necessity for this work. It wa::~ encouraged by almost every succeeding Administration. It origi­nated the American idea of Henry Clay and has always been a bulwark of the :Monroe doctrine.

In the past fifty years our Government has repeatedly asserted the necessity for the canal, and that it would look with extreme hostility upon its being built, or owned, or dominated by a foreign power. The discovery of gold in California and the rush of om· people to the Pacific coast in 1849 opened the eyes of all Americans to the necessity of the United States controlling this

- highway between our eastern and western States. We made treatie with Great Britain to encourage private enterprise to do this WOl'k, and to prevent any European power from undertaking it. Our necessity was so great that we permitted without pro­test the French Canal Company of De Lesseps to proceed with their work. After the failure of that company and of private enterprises on the Nicaragua route, the duty of our Government became clear.

When we succeeded to the inheritance of Charles V, by the acquisition of Porto Rico, by the establishment of a friendly re­public in Cuba and by the po session of California on our Pacific coast, of Hawaii midway and the Philippines at the gates of the Orient, the responsibility upon us to construct this canal was as much greater than it was upon that monarch as has been the growth of commerce and civilization from the fifteenth to the nineteenth century. For national defense, as well as national unity, there must be an unbroken line of co.ast from the north­ernmost limits of :Maine to the northernmost limits of Alaska. For the employment of our capital and our labor in the ever-in­creasing sm·plu of our productions. we must reach, with the ad­vantages which the canal would give us. the republics of South America and the count~ess millions in the old count1·ies across the Paeific.

The Republic of Colombia recognizing this need sent here a diplomatic representative carrying a proposition. With scarcely any modification on our part this tentative agreement presented by Colombia was embodied in the Hay-Herran treaty. In that instrument was the most generous treatment of all interests to be acquired. We were to buy the plant and the properties of the French Company for $40,000,000. We were to give to Colombia $10.000,000 for a franchise which would be of incalculable benefit to that country. While we were permitted to exercise certain powers within a zone, six miles wide, for the protection of the canal, yet the overeignty over that strip was recognized in every line of the treaty as remaining with Colombia. This concession was a weakne sin the treaty for our interests.

The excuse for this concession was that our power was so great our interests could never be imperiled. There is no enlightened government in the world whose financial condition is not strong enough to construct through its territories a public improvement of such vast moment to its people, which would not grant freely the right to build to any company or government which would spend their millions to confer upon its citizens commerce, trade, industries~ and development. This Colombian treaty, agreed to by the President approved by the Secretary of State, and ratified by the Senate of the United States, was carried back to Bogota by the Colombian minister. Then began upon the stage of that capital a drama of unequaled interest, whether we look upon it as tragedy, comedy or opera bouffe. Marroquin, the Vice-President, had three years before, by a revolution, imprisoned the President, suspended the constitution, established martial law and begun ruling as dictator.

After many revolts against his authority, in a final revolution he d~feated the liberals in a great battle, and they fled from the field , leaving upon it 7,000 of their dead. Marroquin was now absolute master of the constitution, the laws, the lives, and the property of the people of Colombia. He evidently proposed this treaty to secure S10,000,000 from the United States Government. He wanted money and ten millions in gold, reckoned by the value of Colombian currency, would be about fifty millions in that Republic. But the speed and alacrity with which his offer was accepted opened his mind to visions of boundless wealth. He ce~inly developed, in his effort to compass these riches, Machia­vellian statesmanship of a high order.

He declared the constitution operative, ordered an election and summoned a Congress. He had the army and ab olute power; he controlled the machinery of elections, and brought to the capi­tal his own representatives. He was in a position at any moment

to again suspend the constitution, prorogue Congress or send them to jail. But he said,'' This is my treaty. which I sent up to Wa-shington when I was the government, which the United States has agreed to, and there must be some excuse which will appeal to the powers at Washington for more money. I must create an opposition to my Government." So he granted for the first time in three years a restricted liberty to the press, he liberated the editors and permitted the confiscated newspapers to resume. The·' cue" given to them was to assail the treaty and the United States. This was to create the impression that there was a vio­lent opposition, in a country where only five per cent of the people can read , against the Hay-Herran settlement. Next he created an apposition to the Government in Congress.

The orators to whom this role was assigned. with all the tropi­cal luxuriance of Latin eloquence, denounced this infamous agree­ment, this frightful sm·render of the rights and interests of Colom­bia. :Marroquin, as Vice-Pre ident, presiding over the Senate, lis­tened with pleasure to these fusilades upon his own statesmanship prearranged by himself. Every citizen of Colombia who hadany intelligence, and every member of either House of that Congress knew that Marroquin had but to lift his finger and the vote for the treaty would be unanimous. This drama, accurately reported by our Minister Beaupre to the Secretary of State, closed with Vice-President Marroquin saying to us substantially: ''You see the trouble I have in this uncontrollable opposition. Of cour e I want to carry out my treaty, but unless concessions are made, not to me. but to the pride and sentiments of my country, I am help­less. But if the United States will give$10.000,000 more, I think I can satisfy this opposition; at least I will risk my popularity, reputation and power in the effort."

The answer of the United States was an unmistakable and em­phatic no. That answer has the unanimous approval of the pub­lic sentiment of our country. The Vice-President then said to the French company," If you will pay that $10,000,000 extra out of your $40,000,000, wewillratifythe ti·eaty." The French company rejected the proposition. Then both the minister of Great Britain and the minister of Germany were approached to see whether a "dicker" r.ould not be arranged and a sort of auction set up, with Great Britain, Germany and the United States as the bidders. The folly of this proposition was in its violation of the Monroe Doctrine by a Republic which had been many times its beneficiary, a Repub­lic which now has quarrels upon its hands with Great Britain and France because of outrages committed upon the citizens of those countries, which would lead to summary and drastic measures of reprisals except for the :Monroe doctrine.

No bett.er illusti·ation of the understanding by the European governments of the sanctity of this article of American interna­tional law has been shown of late than this action of the repre­sentatives of these powers. No stronger proofs have been given of the interest of every great commercial nation in the construc­tion of this canal in the interest of commmerce and civilization and its construction and control by the -United States. These patriotic efforts of the Vice-President and dictator to secure more money by many me tho~ of holdup were discouraging, but he did not despair. Hehadreceivedanemphaticnegativefrom the United States, had been refused by the French Panama Canal Company and turned down by Great Britain and GermanY, But he had been trained in many revolutions where money had to be raised by other proce ses than the orderly ones of assessments and taxa­tion upon all the people and properties of the country upon an equal basis. His resourceful genius was equal to the occasion.

He had called together his Congress, to carry out his programme of exploiting this asset of Colombia for many times more than the price at which he had agreed to sell it. Then occulTed to him an idea of high finance which ought to make the most imaginative and audacious of our promoters blush at their incapacity. The Panama Canal Company had received from him while dictator upon the payment of a million dollars and 5 000,000 francs at par of stock of the new company, a concession which ran until1910. T:p_e old concession expired in October, 1904, and for this the French company had paid Colombia 12,000,000 francs. With every concession, where vast amounts of money have been ex­pended in good faith and large sums paid for the franchise, there are always equities to the defaUlting party, but the new sche:;ne dismissed the equities, the extension of the charter and the million dolla1·s consideration paid, which had been spent.

The Congre s, to the tearful regret and over the wishes of the dictator and vice-president, rejected the treaty by an almost unani­mous vote and then adjourned. But Congressmen talk after ad­journment.· It is their habit in all countries, and the Senators and Representatives who participated in this picture que drama of national aggrandizement said that the object of the adjournment was to wait until the old conces ion of the Panama Canal Com­pany had expired, in October, then to recall Congress in extraor­dinary session in November, declare the concession canceled and seize upon the property of the French Canal Company. Then,

--

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. J .ANU .ARY 14-,

they said, we will offer to the United States the properties of the tralized power at Bogota. He adopted a system, unde-r a so-called French Canal Company for the $40,000,000 which are to be paid constitution, by which they were ruled as Spain governed Cuba­that corporation and the ten million which are coming to us. by governors, who were really captain-generals, with absolute ' Of course," they argued,' the United States will be quite will- lX>wer. ing to enter upon an agreement of this kind: because the sum His enemies in the several States, and the patriots who re isted which they pay will be the same in amount as they have agreed this suppression of liberty, were punished by imprisonment, exile upon under the terms of the Hay-Herran treaty and the contract or execution. From the time of this arbitrary destruction of the with the French Canal Company.,, rights and liberties of the independent State of Panama that

There are two considerations in this choice bit of :financieling Republic has been in a continued condition of unrest and revolt. which seemed never to have occurred to the statesman who The duties collected at its ports of Panama and Colon were trans­guides the destinies of Colombia and the orators whom he placed mitted to Bogota. The taxes levied all went to Bogota. Of the in various roles to play their instructed parts. The first was an subsidyof $250,000 a yearpaid by the Panama Railroad Company, utter indifference or ignorance of the fact that the United States 8225,000 went to Bogota and $25,000 to the governor of Panama, had a national conscience. We are a commercial nation. Our appointed by the President of Cblombia, to distribute in his fudg­people are t rained to all the refinements of business obligations ment in the Department of Panama. Though Panama had only and all the reciprocal relations of contracts. Much as we want one-fifteenth of the population of the Republic, she contributed the canal, we never conld have taken it by becoming a partner in a large part of its revenues, but under this arbitrary constitution this highway robbery of the property of the citizens of France. to which Panama never assented and never accepted, a constitu~ The Panama Canal scheme has been unpopular in France for many tion imposed by force and maintained by an army and an alien years, and French statesmen and politicians have been afraid to governor, she received during all these years practically no moneys have any connections with it. for highways, for development, for education or for any of the

It is becanse of the millions of dollars lost by the French people needs of a live and growing State. in the inv~stment and the scandals caused by the corrupt use, by It is an interesting and picturesque view of the situation that the officers of the company, of much of the money subscribed. the obligation of the United States to keep free transit across the But here would be a case which no government could neglect. Isthmus has worked both ways with Colombia. There have The French Canal Company, representing its several htmdred been many revolts in Panama in the effort on the part of tyran­thousands of French citizens.couldsayto the French Government, ized, plundered and patriotic citizens to regain their liberties and '"Here areeouitiesof great value, and here is apropertyforwhich rights. Every one of them has been sternly and ruthlessly sup­we have paid our :rrumey that has been arbitrarily confiscated.':. pressed by the central Government at Bogota. The sncoos of the Then we would have had upon our hands difficulties, compared Bogotan Government was due in nearly every instance to the fact with which the pre ent ones are infinitesimal. We could not that the United States would not permit interruption of transit deny the justice of the demand of the French Government to land across the Isthmus. When the revolutionists would have seized its army upon the Isthmus and enforce its claims. Here again the railroad which connected the oceans, the United States was the shrewd and able leader of Colombia-for he is both shrewd the ally of the Bogotan Government to keep that open. and able-counted first upon the cupidity of the United States to The result was that it was easy for the Government forces every become a party to this robbery of the French, and then to the time to put down a rebellion because the recruits of the State assertion of the 1\fonroe doetrineto prevent France from demand- could not be gathered into a successful army. But lo I the work­ing and maintaining the rights of her citizens. ing of this provision the other way. Citizens of Panama in No-

Colombia, after failing to confiscate the French property in the vember of this year, without a dissenting voice, reasserted the canal, now appeals as a stockholder in the French Canal Com- sovereignty of the State, which they had never surrendered, and pany, to prohibit the transfer of the canal property to the United proclaimed a Republic. The Colombian army joined the revoln­States without the consent of Colombia. France has recognized tion. With the military forces of the Bogotan Government en­the Republic of Panama. In so doing she is committed to the listing under the flag of the new Republic the authority of Pan­transfer to the new sovereignty of all public property within its ama was complete throughout all its borders. When, therefore, jurisdiction. The Colombian Government has no better claim to some time after the Republic had been e tabli hed and was in the Panama Canal, or jurisdiction over it, than Great Britain has working order, and had at Panama its army, a Colombian army over Bunker Hill. The same rule and construction will apply in landed at Colon for the purpose of invasion and battl~, the United case Colombia should, as bas been suggested here commence an State took toward it the same position that it had toward the action in New York against the Panama Railroad Company, a revolutionists in the many efforts made by them for the freedom New York corporation, to compel a continuance of the subsidy of of Panama. $2.)0,000 a year to Colombia, instead of to Panama. Onr Government siirrply said to these so di~rs, "You can not

Up to this time, it will be said, no matter what was the con- take possession of this railroad and interr upt traffic aero s the duct, no matter what the double dealing, no matter what the I thmus. You can not engage in a battle or a series of battles breaches of faith, no matter what the character of the hold up by which would stop communication for an indefinite perivd." At the responsible Government of Colombia, that GoT"ernment could this point occurs an episode of which I find no parallel in ancient act as it pleased upon granting rights, franchises, and properties or modern history. The generals of the invading army said to within its own jurisdiction. This leads ns at once to the new- the authorities of the new Republic," We are here to suppress phase of the problem presented by the organization of the Repub- you, arrest you, caiTY you plisoners to Bogota and overthrow the lie of Panama. Panama was one of the first settlements madein Republic, but what will you give us to quit? " The sum of :000 the Western Hemisphere. After the city of Panama had been was paid to the general, 35 000 for the officers and $3.000 for the :raided, robbed, and burned by Morgan and his pirates it was men, and theinvadingarmysailedawaywiththe proud con cious­movedabout seven miles, tathepresent site. It was the depot for ness of having become the possessors of a part of the assets of hundreds of years for the commerce going between the Atlantic the new Republic. and Pacific oceans. The province was one of the last to throw The story of the rule of Panama by these arbitrery satraps, off the yoke of Spain. sent down from Bogota, rea.ds like the history of the rule of a

When General Bolivar succeeded in the revolution which he Roman proconsul or the story of the methods of a Turki h gov­organized, be formed a loose-join·tea republic out of the States of ernor. Arbitrary an·ests and imprisonments without tJ:ial were. Colombia_, Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama. There was little in common. Arbitrary assessments of shopkeepers and people of common, territorially, commel'cially, or industrially between property were of everyday occurrence. These victims have been these States. After a few years Venezuela seceded and formed 13. afraid heretofore to speak, but now the newspapers are filled with separate government. Three years afterwards Ecuador did the their stories. The price of life and liberty, after forcible seizure same. Panama remained to all intents and purposes an inde- of person and property, was dependent upon the amount that the pendent Republic. In the new arrangement which was citizen disgorged. Under this tyrannical rule he was helpless made Panama joined Colombia under a constitution which dis- before the courts or upon appeal to the central Government. tinctly recognized the right of secession for any cause, and bound Panama had as much right to revolt as did Greece from Turkey the s:weral parts only to federal contributions according to in the early part of the nineteenth century or Bulgaria in the lat. their judgment. It was almo t a counterpart of the Articles of ter part, and even more, for she had never consented to surrender Federation in our own country which were succeeded by the her sovereignty to Colombia. Federal Constitution. This relation continued practically from The people of Colombia outside of Panam.a number about 1861 to 1886. 4,000,000, of which 2,000,000 are of Spanish descent and 2 000,000

Then a dictator aro e by the name of Nunez and got control of a mixture of Caucasian, Indian and negro. There are few or no the army and navy and all the resources of the country. He sus- railroads or other highways in the country, there is no system of pended the Gonstitution, the Congress, and the laws, and gov~rned general education and dense ignorance prevails. A very small the country according to his own despotic will for a number of proportion of the people----a few thousand-are educated in the years. He subjugated the several States, overturned their sov- United States orinEurope,and form thegoverningclass. Colom­ereignty and forced them to become mere deparl."nents of the cen- bia is separated from Panama by hundreds of miles of mountains

1904. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 761

and impenetrable forests and swamps, inhabited by hostile Indians. Pd.llama, on the other hand, has every facility, under good govern­ment, for a prosperous State. It is about as large as Maine. It has the same agricultural possibilities as the other Central American republics. It is rich in minerals and timber. Great cities, thriv­ing populations and varied industries have always grown along the lines of commercial highways.

While the Panama Canal is being constructed and $150,000,000 spent within the Republic, there will be a wonderful industrial development. When the canal is opened and the commerce of the world is passing to and fro, the population of Panama will speedily rise above the million point. :Merchandise of every kind for the Sllpply of the ships sailing through it will bring capital and business talent to the cities on either side and through the interior. Sanitation, which has done so much for Cuba, will make the Isthmus as healthy as any part of the United States. With American ideas and American sovereignty over the large strip between the two seas, and American influence and example, schoolhouses will dot the land and the people become educated to an appreciation of their liberties and the proper exercise of them and of their marvelously favorable commercial, fiscal and indus­trial position.

But, it is said, the position of the United States in recognizing the Republic of Panama is a reversal of our national position on the subject of secession. I can not conceive of the argument by which comparison is made between the States of the American Commonwealth and Panama and Colombia. One hundred and seventeen years ago our forefathers saw that a nation could not be held together by such a rope of sand as the Articles of Federa­tion. They met in convention, not under the rule of a dictator, not under the guidance of an autocrat, but as the accredited rep­re entatives of the people of the various States. When their labors were completed the country read, and the world was aston-ished by, the marvelous instrument which they had prepared. •

The opening sentence of this great charter tells the story of the perpetuity of our national life: "We, the people of the United l:;tates, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, pro­mote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitu­tion for the United States of America." For eighty years the national sovereignty was questioned only in debate. To preserve the institution of slavery, which was alien to our Declaration of Independence and a stain upon the spirit of our institutions, the civil war was inaugurated. To-day in every part of the country public sentiment is unanimous of its approval of the verdict which came from the arbitrament of arms. Our Union is sustained by a continued series of decisioru; of our highest court, by the judg­ment of our Presidents and Congresses and by the results of war, and, unimpaired by the passions of the conflict, will continue on forever. It is sacrilege to compare this majestic and impregnable fabric of government with the position of Panama in the Repub­lic of Colombia.

In 1886 Mr. V. 0. King, United States minister to Colombia, in a dispatch to Mr. Bayard, Secretary of State, tells precisely how the Colombian constitution was formed. He says:

At the close of the late revolution President Nunez, whose term of office had then nearly expired and whose reelection was forbidden by the constitu­tion then in force, ISSued a proclamation ann ullin~ that instrument and de­claring an interregnum in the Government. .c.e appointed provisional governors in all of the nine States, and directed them to nominate two dele­gates each, who, together, Should constitute a national council to convene at the capital.

And this is the convention which is compared with that which formed our Constitution!

On assembling in November,1885. the first a.cts of thisbodywere to ratify the conduct of Doctor Nunez and to confirm his appointments. It then elected him as chief magistrate of the nation for the term of six years, and proceeded to formulate a projet of fundamental principles for a new constitu­tion to be submitted to the corporate vote of the municipal boards of alder­men throughout the country. Upon canvassing the returns the council-

This council of his own-declared a majority of such votes to be in favor of the new co:rrstitution, and thereupon proceeded to elaborate the instrument that is herewith submitted, which, from the number, fullness, and precision of the precepts enunciated, has left but little of the machinery to be devised by the executive or legisla­tive power.

It will thus be seen that President Nunez, who was both a USllrper and a dictator, arbitrarily annulled the constitution under which Panama consented to become a part of the Republic of Colombia, retaining, however, her entire sovereignty and right of secession. The tremendous difference between the formation of our Constitution and that of Colombia in 1886 is in the fact that this so-called convention, which framed the constitution destruc­tive of the State, was composed of the instruments of the dictator, appointed by himself, and that neither in the election of delegates to the convention nor the ratifying of the treaty did the people of Panama or their .representatives have any voice whatever?

Panama, an independent State, robbed by armies of her liber-

ties, tyrannically and arbitrarily governed without her consent, suffering under intolerable tyranny and threatened with the con­fiscation of a public improvement upon which depended her exist­ence, simply retakes, and demonstrates her ability to hold, the sovereignty of which she had been despoiled. But, say the critics of the President, the officers of the United States inaugurated this rebellion and ships were dispatched, to aid the revolt before it was ever intended. No one doubts that it was the duty of the President to keep the highway open across the Isthmus. No one doubts that if the rights of American citizens were in peril because of revolution or anarchy the United States must have a force on the spot sufficient for their protection. The dispatches of Min­ister Beaupre are illuminating on this Sllbject.

The forces of the United States arrived at the Isthmus on No­vember 3. The revolution broke out on November 4. The build­ing of the canal was vital to Panama. Except for the money to be distributed at Bogota for the concession, its construction was of little account to the Republic over the mountains. The delegates from Panama to the Congress were apparently the oniy inde­pendent members of that body. When they arrived on July 5 they immediately notified Vice-President Manoquin that if the treaty was rejected Panama would revolt. This notification was so public that the minister of the United States was enabled to wTite it to our Government.

On August 17 the treaty was rejected and the representatives from Panama expressed their purpose so emphatically that om· minister was able to inform the Secretary of State that they had determined to break loose from the Bogota Government and form an independent republic. Two things are evident: One, Mano­quin believed his forces upon the Isthmus were sufficient to pre­vent the revolt from succeeding. He evidently thought it would be the old process by which the patriots would organize at differ­ent places and could not come together without having a conflict along the line of the railroad with the forces of the central Gov­ernment, that such a conflict would interrupt travel and comm~ nication and that the United States would, as before, prevent the revolutionary army from concentrating or making any headway. It never occurred to him that his own army would go over to the revolutionists, and then he would be outside the breastworks.

It is perfectly plain that these delegates, on returning in August to Panama, were joined by all the leading citizens, and that they had plenty of time between the middle of August and November 4 t:> perfect their plans for a successful revolution. So the Presi­dent knew perfectly well by advice from our minister at Bogota, from our naval officers at Panama and Colon and from newspaper reports which were the common property of everyone, that such an uprising would occur as to require of the United States the pres­ence of a force sufficient to protect our citizens and to carry out our treaty obligations.

The farcical character of the action of the Col om biRn Congress and its complete control by Marroquin, together with the fact that Colombia could not subdue the revolution in Panama with­out the aid of the United States, are demonstrated by the follow­ing dispatch, sent November 6, two days after the revolution in Panama, by our :Minister Beaupre:

Knowing 'that the revolution has already commenced in Panama., -­- --says that if the Government of the United States will land troops to preserve Colombian sovereignty and the transit~ if requested by the Colom­bian charge d'affaires, this Government will a.eclare martial law, and by virtue of vested constitutional authority when public order is disturbed, will approve by decree the ratification of the canal treaty as signed· or, if the Government of the United St&tes prefers, will call extra session of Con­gress and new and friendly members next May to approve the treaty.

Because it was a telegram the name was indicated by a blank. The blank undoubtedly meant Marroquin, for no one else could have made such pledges.

Mr. President, that is an exhibition of arbitrary power, of the confidence of the dictator 'of his ability to do whatever he pleases, of whi<lh I think there is no parallel anywhere. He says, in ef­fect, to the United States: "ArBvolutionhasbrokenoutinPanama, my army has gone over to the Republic and I am helpless. Now, if you will put down that revolution at my request I will abandon the claim of $10,000,000 more than agreed to which our Congress made. I will dismiss all pretense that this Congress had any power or was other than myself. I will do everything you want. I will suspend the constitution. Then I can do anything and will ratify this treaty-the Hay-Herran treaty-or do any other old thing you may desire; or, if you have constitutional lawyers in the Senate who doubt my ability or power to act llD.der a suspen­sion of the constitution, I will put the constitution again in force and summon the members of Congress here. Each one of them will do what I tell him, and Congress will ratify the treaty in any form that you suggest."

"'jet our friend the Senator from Nevada [Mr. NEWLANDS] has just eloquently and at great length proved-to his own satisfac­tion-that war exists between the United States and Colombia; that war exists by the act of the United States landing 42 marines

·762 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. JANUARY 14,

on the Isthmus, when :Marroquin had 1 500 soldiers who deserted his standard and 400 others who left for home when their general got$ ,000; that war exists between the United States and Colom­bia when during all the time from the first telegram of President Roosevelt until now, the Colombian minister has been here, hav­ing daily communication with the Secretary of State. When every diplomatic condition which means peace, and continuing peace, exists between the United States and Colombia, the Sen­ator from Nevada says we have war. There must be lurid im­aginings among .... enators who, instead of living within the limits of the city where they are in contact with hard facts, reside and muse in the rural outskirts of the capital. [Laughter.]

Our diplomatic history bristles With recognitions of de facto governments formed by revolutions. Where the sympathies of our people were with the revolt, Presidents have paid little atten­tion to the possibilities of success or the offensive or defen ive means of the revolting provinces or states. The principle of international law that recognition is wholly in the discretion of the po}Ver which makes it and is not a cause for war is tooele­mental'}' to discus. Our position with Cuba went far beyond this. We warned the Spanish Government to get out of Cuba when there was no war between us simply because of intolerable internal conditions on that island. We finally drove the Spanish army out of Cuba and then governed it for two years. Were­fused to let Cuba recognize the Cuban debt, the bonds of which had been sold in Europe based for security upon Cuban revenues.

Our obligation for forty-eight years to Colombia, to Panama, to our citizens and the world has been to keep communication and transit open and unmolested between the oceans. It is a terri­torial burden and runs with the land. It birids the United States to keep off the premises all hostile trespassers, whether they are the armies of the great powers of Europe, of Colombia or of the contiguous people of Panama.

Marroquin, amidst the ruins of his scheme by the successful revolt of Panama is not discoumged. He rises gaily and hope­fully to new efforts. He proposes, notwithstanding his machine Congress has adjourned, to give us now the canal on our own terms if we will suppress the Panama Republic. When that is rejected. he has another resouTce. It appears in a dispatch in the Wa hington Post of January 10, dated Januu.ry 8, from Bogota: from Clifford Smythe, former consul at Cartagena, Colombia. Mr. Smythe says he is authorized by President Marroquin to quote him as follows: -

The people of Colombia-

That iB delightful from Marroquin-" the people of Colombia"­still hope that actual conflict may be averted through Democratic inter­vention in the Senate. Personally, I count on the assistance of the Demo­cratic party and the great American people to save the sacred rights of Colombia, which have been so scandalously wounded.

The trouble with President Marroquin is, in the first place, he doe not understand that the Democ:r:atic party is not in a ma­jority in the two Houses of Congress and that it has not the Presidency; he does not under tand that it js not likely in the near future to have either; he does not understand that the rela­tions between the Democratic party and the people are such that if he did understand he would not couple them in the way he has in this authorized dispatch.

Then he does not understand another thing, Mr. President-! say this not to do injustice to the Democratic party-that the Democratic St~te of Loui iana has unanimously, by its legisla­ture, directed its Senators to vote in favor of the 1·atification of this treaty; that the Democratic State of Mississippi has through it legislature, directed its Senators to vote to ratify this treaty; and that in all probability if the other Southern States, who will be more benefited a hundred times over than all the rest of the United States by the construction of this canal, should meet in then· legislatures, they would not stand in thepo ition of saying, "We keep the goods while we denounce the method by which they were secured."

The Republic of Panama had absolute authority over its terri­tory without any pretense of opposition from outside or inside of the Republic at the time of its recognition by our President, and has still. Our Government recognized the Republic of Panama on November 13. Certainly there had been no change in the conditions there when three days afterwards France did the same. nor when eleven days afterwards Austria-Hungary also extended its recognition; nor, still more significant, when, fom·teen days afterwards, Germany-most particular and scrupulous about anything occurring on this hemisphere-extended her diplomatic recognition. In less than fifty days sixteen of the powers of the world had established relations with the young Republic. If these old countries-Great Britain, Germany, France~ Russia. China, Japan. Sweden and Norway, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy and Denmark-find the conditions such upon the Isthmus that they can take a step which in the chancelleries of the Old World means

so much, surely our younger and more progressive diplomacy has ample excuse for preceding them by a few days.

Now, sir, we had no other hand nor part in this revolution than the example of the American colonies and the succe sful appli­cation of the principles of liberty in the United States, which have created republics and undermined thrones all over the world .. The advantages of the treaty with Panama over that with Co­lombia to the United States are incalculable. Instead of six miles for the canal zone, there are ten on each side of the waterway. Instead of a limited sovereignty, which would necessarily lead to endless complications, this territory is ceded outright and in perpetuity to the United States. At the termini of the canal it is vital that there should be unquestioned jurisdiction of the United States. In this territory the Government has complete authority for three marine leagues from Panama into the Pacific Ocean and three leagues from Colon il?-to the Caribbean Sea. The Republic of Panama surrenders the right to impose port dues or duties of any kind upon ships and goods in transit across the Isth­mus. The sole power to impose tolls and collect them rests with the United States.

Every nation and the people of all countries are interested in this great work. There is a unanimity unequaled in history that it should be con tructed, operated and owned by the United States. We are distant by 3,000 miles of ocean from Em·ope. We are not in conflict and can not be embroiled in the jealousies or conflicts of the great powers. They trust our honor to keep this waterway inviolate as the highway of the nations. They see that the problem which Columbus sought to solve will so find its solution under the auspices of the United State!'! and it will not be, as it would under the auspices of Charles V, a Spanish canal, nor will it be, as under De Les eps, a French canal, but for all the purposes of commerce and of intercourse between the East and the West it will be an open sea, subject only to such restric­tions as are admitted by all the world necessary for the protec­tion of the waterway or for the protection or defense of the United States.

In the providence of the creation and decay of nations no state ever became independent so completely, so righteously or so timely as Panama. The hour struck for her when the world was watching the clock. No Pre ident ever did a more timely or patriotic act than did Pre ident Roosevelt in his recognition and defense of the Republic of Panama.

EXECUTIVE SESSION.

:Mr. CULLOl\f. I move that the Senate proceed to the consid­eration of executive business.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate proceeded to the con­sideration of executive business. After eighteen minutes spent in executive session the doors were reopened, and (at 4 o'clock and 28 minutes p. m.) the Senate adjourned until to-morrow, Friday; January 15, 1904, at 12 o'clock meridian.

NOMINATIONS. Executive nominations received by the Senate Janua?'?J 11,., 1901,.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMB.

Ezra B. Bailey, of Connecticut, to be collector of customs for the district of Hartford, in the State of Connecticut. (Reap­pointment.)

CONFIRMATIONS. Executive nomination conji?"lned bu the Senate January 11, 1901,.

POSTMASTER. NEW HAMPSHIRE.

Charles E. Buzzell to be postmaster at Lakeport, in the county of Belknap and State of New Hampshire. Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate January 14, 1901,.

PROMOTIONS IN THE ARMY.

GENERAL OFFICERS.

To be Lie:utenant-General. :Maj. Gen. Adna R. Chaffee, United States Army, January 9,

1904, vice Young, to be retired from active service. To be ma}or-general.

Brig. Gen. George L. Gillespie, Chief of Engineers, vice Ran­dolph~ to be retired from active service.

CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

Col. .Alexander Mackenzie, Corps of Engineers, to be Chief of Engineers, with the rank of brigadier-general, vice Gillespie, to be appointed major-general, United States Army.

DEPUTY AUDITOR.

Robert S. Cowie, of Wisconsin, to be Deputy Auditor for the Navy Department.

1904 .. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE. 763 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY.

JohnJ. Sullivan, of Ohio, to be United States attorney for the northern district of Ohio.

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS.

George F. Roth, of New York, to be collector of customs for the district of Genesee, in the State of New York.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

THURSDAY, January 14, 1904. The House met at 12 o'clock m. Prayer by the Chaplain, Rev. HR:.~Y N. CouDEN, D. D. The Journal of ye terday's proceedings was read and approved.

POSTM.ASTERS, MO IUME...~T FOR BENJAMIN HARRISON,

cALIFORh~A Mr. OVERSTREET. :Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent · . . to take from the Speaker's table and consider Senate resolution 31.

James L. Matthews to be pos~mas~er at Corma, m the county I The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana asks unanimous of Los Angeles and State of Califorma. consent to take from the Speaker's table the following joint reso-

IDAHO. • lution, which the Clerk will read. George E. Hovey to be postmaster at Burke, m the county of The Clerk read as follows :

Sho hone and State of Idaho. William J. Turner to be postmaster at Mountain Home, in the

county of Elmore and State of Idaho. Charles W. Wilson to be postmaster at Sandpoint, in the county

of Kootenai and State of Idaho. INDIAN TERRITORY.

William R. Casteel to be postmaster at Mounds, in the Creek Nation, Ind. T.

IOWA.

Lars E. Bladine to be postmaster at Marathon, in the county of Buena Vista and State of Iowa.

Richard M. Boyd to be postmaster at Sanborn, in the county of O'Brien and State of Iowa.

William D. Junkin to be postmaster at Rock Rapids, in the county of Lyon and State of Iowa.

Benjamin F. Keables to be postmaster at Pella, in the county of Marion and State of Iowa.

William C. Marsh to be postmaster at Aurelia, in the county of Cherokee and State of Iowa.

Frank J. Tishenbanner to be postmaster at Gilmore City, in the county of Pocahontas and State of Iowa.

MAINE.

William B. Brown to be postmaster at Hartland, in the county of Somerset and State of Maine.

George L. Hovey to be postmaster at North Anson, in the county of Somerset and State of Maine.

MASSACHUSETTS.

Joint r esolution (S. R. 31) authorizing the erection and maintenance of a statue in memory of the late President, Benjamin Harrison, upon land owned by the· Unlted States in the city of Indianapolis, State of Indiana. Resolved, etc., That the Benjamin Harrison Memorial Association of Indi-

ana be, and it is hereb~ authorized to construct and maintain, on property owned by the United t~tates in square No. 36, in the city of Indianapolis, State of Indiana, a monument in honor of the life and services of the late President, Benjamin Harrison. The said monument shall be constructed south of the post-office, court-house, and custom-house building, now in course of erection on said square, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection? Mr. CLARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman

a question. and that is if this resolution in any way binds the United Stat.es Government to pay anything at all?

Mr. OVERSTREET. In no way at all. Mr. CLARK. It just grants permission to somebody else to do

this? Mr. OVERSTREET. It merely grants permission to this a-sso­

ciation to construct and maintain upon ground owned by the Government a monument to the late President, Benjamin Har­rison.

The SPEAKER. The Chair hears no objection-1\Ir. OVERSTREET. Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer an amend­

ment, and that is to .strike out the word "memorial," in line 3, and insert the word "monument."

The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: In line 3 strike out the word "memorial" and insert in lieu thereof the

word "monument" William H. Sprague to be postmaster at Stoneham, in the · . . . .

county of Middlesex and State of Massachusetts. 1 The SPEAKER. Without obJection, the amendment will be . agreed to.

MICHIGAN. • • • I 1\Ir. OVERSTREET. Also, Mr. Speaker, I move to strike out Henry B. Henderson to be po~t~aster at Millington, m the the word ''statue " in the title and insert in lieu thereof the word

county of Tusco~a and State of Michigan. . . "monument." Clarence S. Mills to be p_os~aster at Stockbndge, m the county The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the amendment.

of Ingham and State of Michigan. The Clerk read as follows: _ 1 MI:SNESOTA.

Justin E. Stiles to be postmaster at Wells, in the county of Fari­bault and State of Minnesota.

In the title strike out the word" statue" and insert the word "monument."

TheSPEAKER. Withoutobjection, theamendment isadopted. The question was on the third reading of the Senate resolution.

mssoURr. The resolution was read the third time, and agreed to. Charles L. Gray to be postmaster at Carterville, in the county On motion of Mr. OVERSTREET, the motion to reconsider was

of Jasper and State of Missouri. . l laid on the table. NEW JERSEY. I MAKING CHESTER, PA., A SUBPORT OF ENTRY.

Leslie I. Cooke to be postmaster at Hackettstown, in the county Mr. BUTLER of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous of Warren and Sta~ of New Jersey. . consent for the present consideration of the bill (S. 652) making

Lawrence W. Sickler to be postmaster at Glassboro, m the I Chester, Pa., a subport of entry. county of Gloucester and State of New Jersey. The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

OHIO. Be it enacted, etc., That Chester, in the State of Pennsylvania, be, and is John G. Burley to be postmaster at Crooksville, in the county hereby, constituted a subport of entry in the customs-collection district of

of Perry and State of Ohio. Philadelphia., Pa. . WaiTen W. Williams to be postmaster at Jeffersonville, in the The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

county of Fayette and State of Ohio. Mr. CLARK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman TEIDi-:E sEE. from Pennsylvania if that bill has ever been referred to a com-

William C. Cassady to be postmaster at Lenoir City, in the mittee? county of Loudon and State of T~nnessee. Mr. BUTLER of Pennsylvania. It has been referred to the

VERbiONT.

HenryS. Webster to be postmaster at Barton Landing, in the county of Orleans and State of Vermont.

WISCONSIN.

Henry G. Laun to be postmaster at Wausaukee, in the county of Marinette and State of Wisconsin.

John A. Watson to be postmaster at Kaukauna, in the county of Outagamie and State of Wisconsin.

EXTRADITION TREATY WITH THE NETHERLANDS. The injunction of secrecy was removed January 14, 1904, from

a treaty concluded on November 4, 1903, between the United States and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, extending to their respective island possessions and colonies the convention for the extradition of criminals signed on June 3, 1887.

Committee on Ways and Means. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to'the present consideration

of the bill? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third

time, and passed. On motion of Mr. BUTLER of Pennsylvania, a motion to recon­

sider the last vote was laid on the table. COLUMBIAN COLLEGE IN T~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Mr. POWERS of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani­mous consent for the present consideration of the bill (S. 1496) supplemental to the act of February 9, 1 21, incorporating the Columbian College in the District of Columbia, and the acts amendatory thereof.

The Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be ~t e1~ted, etc., T~at the act to incorporate the Columbian College, in

the District of Columbia, approved February 9, I821, and the amendatory act approved March 18, 1898, be, and the same are hereby, amended "Qy repealing