Evening Republican, Volume 18, Number 78, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 1 April 1914 — HOUSE PASSED REPEAL MEASURE [ARTICLE]

HOUSE PASSED REPEAL MEASURE

Speaker Champ Clark Took the Floor Against Administration Policy-Majority Was 86. The house of representatives Tuesday night after a spectacular struggle passed the administration measure repealing the provision of free tolls through the Panama canal to American coastwise vessels. The vote stood 247 to 161. The most dramatic feature of the contest was the speech made by Champ Clark, speaker of the house, in opposition to the repeal. There were 52 democrats voted against the Wilson policy and stood in favor of the platform declaration of the democratic party. Majority Leader Underwpod, of the democratic party, was also apposed to. repeal. Speaker Clark made it plain that his opposition was based upon conviction and in no manner opposed to the president Ihimself. He said that he knew that in making this fight for the fulfillment of the platform pledge of his party might end his public career. He said: ‘There are many things worse than being defeated for the presidency and one of them is to repudiate the platform on which you are elected.” Continuing, he said: “To whom does the Panama canal belong, anyway? To the United States of America. We built it at the enormous cost Of $400,000,000. We built it on American soil. We have fortified it; we will control it. We' built it primarily and almost entirely for our own benefit and secondarily for the world’s benefit. I would rather see the canal walled up than give Great Britain control of it. I had rather see it filled up with granite boulders than to yield one iota of control over it to any foreign nation.” This was the signal for the opponents of tolls repeal to open up their strongest batteries of applause and the chamber rang with the din of cheers and Shouts for several moments. Holding the interest to the end the speaker remained a commanding figure, interrupted by applause constantly as he proceeded. Almost prayerfully, be concluded, lowering his heavy voice to say: “now may the God of our fathers who nerved 3,000,000 backwoods Americans to fling their guage of battle into the face of the mightiest monorch in the world; wbo guided the hand of Jefferson in writing the charter of liberty, who sustained Washington and his ragged and starving army amid the awful horrors of Valley Forge, and who gave them complete victory in the bloodstained heights of Yorktown, may He lead members to vote so as to prevent this stupendous folly—this unquestionable degredation of,the American republic.” Speaker Clark had finished. He had defended his position, praised the president whom he opposed; expressed admiration of his colleagues with whom he differed on this question; chided those who had assailed him and sugar-coated instead of tarring the situation. As he walked from his place, the house arose en masse, democrats, republicans, progressives, alike, and cheered him. When order could be restored Representative Adamson took the floor to close the long debate. Republican Leader Mann told the house three questions were involved in a repeal Of the Panama tolls exemption; treaty rights, moral rights apart from treaty construction and the economic policy involved. The economic ‘question might be changed at any time, he said, but a decision on treaty rights must be a lasting one. He maintained that no construction of the Hay-Paunce-fote treaty compelled the United States to charge the same tolls on its own ships or those of Panama as were levied on those of other nations. “A reading oLthe rules to be observed by nations to receive equal treatment,” he said," plainly discloses that they are not applicable to the United States or Panama. "England’s attempt to secure her construction of the treaty* at this time is not for its present effect It is for the long distant future. If we construe the treaty according to the English claims, it Is sure to, rise and embarrass us whenever we have war with other countries. War is not desirable, but it is inevitable. We oannot always maintain peace. “If we agree nbw to the English construction, it is certain that in the future when we have a war with Japan or China, or some other country, questions will arise in reference to their use and our use of the canal, , especially as to war vessels and in that time of stress we will be met with the contention by England, the present ally of Japan, or by some other country, that W e have already construed that treaty in sudh a way that we cannot protect the canal without bringing a protest from England, or other countries, which will embarrass, If not defeat us in the war. T want to treat England foirly, but I believe that under the con-

struction of the treaty we have a right to do as we please in this matter and that it is an unfriendly act of England, now at this late date to insist upon any other construction.”