clause and endeavor to have our people believe that it stands as an unqualified obligation and our people are being misled throughout our country by such misrepresentation. The men who do this know very well the true definition and application of neutrality. They know that if the rules were for securing the neutrality of the Canal that even without definite power given we should have the right to regulate the ordinary peaceful commerce in our own way—yet, they ignore the broad powers given in Article II. This I claim is insincere.

Then we have what is known as the Bard resolution. During the discussion of the Treaty Senator Bard offered the following resolution:

The United States reserves the right in the regulation and management of the Canal to discriminate in respect of the charges of traffic in favor of vessels of its own citizens engaged in the coast-wise trade.

Senator Root, and those who base their view of the Treaty upon his speech spread broadcast, said:

I say, the Senate rejected that amendment upon this report which declared the rule of universal equality without any preference or discrimination in favor of the United States, as being the meaning of the Treaty and the necessary meaning of the Treaty.

Yet, when Senator Root made this statement he knew and his followers know when they pass along his arguments that Senator Bard had said

over his own signature in a letter to Congressman Knowland read upon the floor of the House, that when his amendment was under consideration it was generally conceded by Senators that without his specific amendment the rules of the Treaty did not prevent discrimination and hence the Bard resolution was considered superfluous by his colleagues.

Now let us note that at the same time and by the same vote a resolution providing for fortifications was voted down because it too was considered superfluous. Mr. Hay reflects the very decided opinion of the Senate in refusing to ratify a treaty that forbade fortification.

Senator Lodge who reported the Treaty in the Senate says it does not bar preference for our own vessels. President Roosevelt who promulgated the Treaty says it does not bar such preference. President Taft declares we have full powers to prefer our own vessels.

After the rejection of the first treaty by the Senate, Mr. Hay said that he feared he could not negotiate a treaty that would be confirmed but Senator Foraker told him that a treaty superseding the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, doing away with all partnership and permitting fortifications would doubtless prove acceptable and a treaty was negotiated along such lines.

Senator Foraker says:

According to my recollections this very question (of

right to discriminate in favor of our own ships) was raised by an amendment offered to the Treaty which amendment was voted down overwhelmingly because it was thought unnecessary to specify that a provision of such a character did not apply to us who were building the Canal, and were to have with respect to it, the usual rights of ownership and all the rights of regulation.

Who best interprets the intent of the Senate at the time, Senator Foraker who aided in the development of an acceptable treaty, or Senator Root who did not take his seat in that body till years after?

But the evidence is not confined to one man nor a dozen men. A few months ago Senator Towne, who was in the Senate at the time wrote me:

There is not the slightest doubt in the world that your impression as to the understanding originally prevalent among the members of the Senate in regard to the right of the United States under the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, to discriminate in favor of its own ships, is correct.

If Senators who have thus testified, and I have quoted men of both parties, who understood the Treaty at the time and who understood as the result of critical study and discussion the essential differences between the second treaty as ratified and the first treaty as submitted for ratification, are not the judges of what they meant, to whom must we apply? Yet Senator Root and others uses this unfair deduction from Senate proceedings in all his speeches and continues to use it after their attention is called to his error.

Am I in error in saying such arguments are insincere?

Similarly we find a favorite argument to be the quoting of Canadian Treaties providing in explicit and definite terms for absolute equality in respect of rules, regulations and tolls upon either American or Canadian vessels in the canal and water system of the Great Lakes. When Canada in contravention of this explicit agreement granted a rebate so as to reduce Canadian charges from twenty cents to two cents the United States objected.

Yet for twenty-one years, in spite of our objections, Canada was supported in her discrimination and it was only after President Cleveland advised retaliatory legislation that the rebates in favor of Canadian vessels were suspended.

But the crowning act of insincerity is that of spreading the idea that we are false to treaty obligations.

The very men who for political advantage give currency to such untruth know that our people are very sensitive to attacks upon the national honor and so appeal to this sentiment for selfish ends.

No nation has suffered more than this for blind adherence to treaties and conventions evaded and violated by others.

Senator Lodge in a speech in the U. S. Senate April 9, 1914, said:

We have scrupulously observed our international agreements and where differences have arisen we have settled them not with the high hand of power but by negotiation and arbitration.

Yet the appeal to our people on this question of tolls wanting logical support is sought to be gained by misrepresenting the sentiment and policy of our people before the world. We shall conserve a decent respect for the opinions of mankind as well by asserting our treaty rights as by standing fast to treaty obligations.