For Free Canal To Our Shipping.

New York Times 100 years ago today, August 8, 1912:
Senate, 44 to 11, Refuses to Strike Out Toll Exemption Clause in Bill.
CONFINED TO COAST CRAFT
Question Is Considered Purely Domestic, with No International Aspect.
ARBITRATION OUTLOOK POOR
Opposing Senators Vainly Urge That the Terms of the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty Be Respected.
Special to The New York Times.
    WASHINGTON, Aug. 7.— By a vote of 44 to 11 the Senate at 11:30 o'clock tonight refused to strike from the Panama Canal bill the provision granting free passage through the canal to American ships. The only amendment of importance in this connection adopted by the Senate inserted the word "exclusively," so that that favors granted to American shipping may apply exclusively to the coastwise trade, in which theoretically there is no competition and therefore no discrimination against foreign bottoms.
    The overwhelming nature of the vote shows that there is no chance that further debate will change the matter before the bill is finally disposed of. It also raises the far more important question as to whether this country will ever permit the treaty rights involved under the Hay-Pauncefote treaty to be arbitrated. The prevailing opinion is that so many of the Senators insist that the whole subject is purely domestic, involving no international aspects, that they will now assert that even a suggestion of arbitration is an impertinence.
    Senators who have fought for the strict observance of the treaty and the equal treatment of American and foreign ships have openly stated on the floor of the Senate that if Congress voted free passage for American ships in the face of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty they would also in the face of an arbitration treaty refuse to arbitrate the question. That has not been denied, and the feeling here to-night is that arbitration will never be reached.
    The debate on the toll feature of the Panama Canal bill was mostly made up of set speeches by the supporters of free transit for American ships. The one exception was Senator McCumber of North Dakota, who for the third time urged the Senate strictly to observe our treaty obligations.  Mr. McCumber, who had gone thoroughly into the subject, answered one of the most important points of his adversaries when he said that if another nation should pay the tolls of its ships through the canal the United States would be justified in considering that that nation had put itself outside the neutrality provisions. What steps would be taken to penalize that nation Mr. McCumber did not say. But it is suggested that an additional toll, something like countervailing duties, provided in the tariff law might be used against the shipping of such a nation. That suggestion seemed to satisfy Mr. Simmons of North Carolina, who from the Democratic side of the chamber had seriously questioned the the ability of any interpretation of the treaty that would bar American shipping from the assistance which their commercial rivals would get from their mother countries.
    Speeches against the treaty were made by Mr. Works of California and Mr. Chamberlain of Oregon, with many interruptions from the floor. Their position in general was that the Hay-Pauncefote treaty committed this country to such a bad bargain that we could not be expected to abide by it. The logical conclusion of this question was seriously presented by Mr. Martine of New Jersey, when, to the amusement of the Senate, he shouted huskily:
    "The Hay-Pauncefote treaty was the act of diplomatic imbecility. Treaty rights are sacred, but we come now to the still more imperative need for self-preservation. To prevent us from being starved out I want the canal to American ships to be as free as God's air."
    Mr. McCumber said that he could easily understand the strong sentiment that had been developed against the treaties when he looked at a map of the United States and saw the number of the senators who came from the coast. It was natural, he said, that their views should be colored by the wishes of their constituents. He predicted that if Congress decided on favors for American shipping the question would never go to The Hague. The same construction of the treaty, he said, which would justify Senators in voting no tolls for American ships would also justify them in voting down a proposal for arbitration.
    The defeat of the Burton amendment to strike out the discrimination in favor of American ships was the Senate's answer to the protest of the British Government against the legislation. It was this clause of the bill which led Great Britain to send a formal protest to the State Department.
    The Senators who voted in favor of the Burton amendment were Brandegee, Burton, Crane, Fall, Gronna, Lodge, Nelson, Oliver, Penrose, Root, and Wetmore.
    Because of the delicacy of the situation Senator Stone asked that the order directing a rollcall on the amendment be vacated and a rising vote taken instead. Objection to this procedure from Senator O'Gorman resulted in the rollcall being taken.
    An amendment by Senator Hoke Smith requiring owners of coastwise vessels to keep the United States free from liabilities for damages resulting from their passage through the canal was defeated. So was an amendment by Senator Percy, which provided that vessels owned by Americans but built abroad should be entitled to registration for the coastwise trade.