Part 12 (1/2)
TO GERMAN MINISTER VON ECKHARDT, Mexico City
In the President's Flag Day address, delivered at Washi+ngton on June 14, 1917, appeared the following:
They [ht by violence to destroy our industries and arrest our coainst us and to draw japan into an hostile alliance with her; and that, not by indirection, but by direct suggestion _fron Office at Berlin_
As the stor beat fiercely upon him, I often wondered if he felt the petty meanness which underlay it, or was disturbed or dispirited by it As the unkind blows fell upon hiave no evidence to those ere close to hier he must have felt at what appeared to be a lack of sympathy on the part of the country toward the idealistic policy in the treatle moment was he driven froiven his heart and soul to a great humane task and he moved toward its consummation amid a hurricane of protests and criticisht he displayed chagrin and disappoint the affairs of Mexico It was in a little speech delivered at the Brooklyn Navy Yard on the occasion of the burial of the Marines who fell at Vera Cruz The following paragraph contained a note of sadness and even depression
Perhaps, in the folloords, he pictured his own loneliness and utter dejection:
I never went into battle; I never was under fire; but I fancy there are soo under fire I fancy that it is just as hard to do your duty whenat you When they shoot at you, they can only take your natural life; when they sneer at you, they can wound your living heart, and h, steady in their principles enough, to go about their duty with regard to their fellow-men, no matter whether there are hisses or cheers,in one of his poems wrote, ”Meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two imposters just the sa, disaster and triumph are iht to think about, but the verdict of his conscience and of the consciences of mankind
CHAPTER XXI
PANAMA TOLLS
In an introduction to ”The Panah Gordon Miller and Joseph C Freehoff, Mr Oscar S Straus wrote: ”There is no hly creditable history of the diplomacy of our country than the repeal of the Pana a controversy affecting our international relations, it is gratifying that, aside from the leadershi+p of the President, the repeal was effected not solely by the party in power, but by the help of leaders in all three parties, rising above the plane of partisan politics to the higher reaches of broad statesard for our international character in accord with 'a decent respect for the opinions of mankind,' as expressed in the Declaration of Independence” President Wilson hi act had been passed, re else about this Adotten, its attitude on the Pana forward step in the process ofthe conduct between nations the same as that which obtains between honourable individuals dealing with each other, scrupulously respecting their contracts, nohis reconored legal technicalities and diploe thing to do is the only thing we can afford to do, a voluntary withdrawal froht to reverse our action without raising the question whether ere right or wrong, and so once enerosity and for the redeation without quibble or hesitation”
An act passed in 1912 had exeh the Canal from the tolls assessed on other vessels, and the British Governround that it violated the Hay-Pauncefote treaty of 1901, which had stipulated that the Canal should be open to the vessels of all nations ”on terland had an interest in this question, and there was a suspicion that some of them were even land took the initiative, and the struggle to save the exemption was turned, in the United States, into a demonstration by the Irish, Germans, and other anti-British eleland and coastwise shi+pping interests formed the backbone of the opposition to any repeal of this exemption, but the Taft Administration had held that the exeround that the words ”all nations” meant all nations except the United States), and British opposition to the fortification of the Canal, as well as the attitude of a section of the British press during the Canadian elections of 1911, had created a distrust of British htened by the conviction of ain
It was understood early in President Wilson's Administration that he believed the exemption was in violation of the treaty, but not until October did he ress to repeal it The question did not coround, however, until March 5, 1914, when the President addressed this request to Congress in oe, which to this day reress,” he said, ”has carried with itimplications to the interests of the country”
After expressing his belief that the law as it stood violated the treaty and should be repealed as a point of honour, he continued: ”I ask this of you in support of the foreign policy of the Administration I shall not kno to deal with other reater delicacy and nearer consequence if you do not grant it tomeasure”
The first word I received that the President conte for the repeal of Panama Tolls, ca that the President wished to confer with me in his study When I arrived at the White House Mrs Wilson met me and informed me of the plan which the President had in mind with reference to this ht which would be carried in the newspapers the followingfor a repeal of the Panama Tolls Mrs Wilson showed considerable excitement over the President's proposed step when she discussed the matter with ued with the President and had tried to persuade hi that noas the inopportune moment for it for the reason that it would create a party crisis and probably a split, the result of which we could not foresee
When I went into the President's study, he read me the announcenificance and the possible danger which lay in the proposed move that the President was about to make struck me at once Frankly I put the whole political situation in the country before him as it would be affected by his attitude in thisto hie blocks of Irish, Germans, and other anti-British eleht expect that the leaders in our own party, the heads of the various coerald of Appropriations, Underwood of the Ways and Means, and Clark, the Speaker of the House, would be found in solid opposition, and that, at a tiraislation into effect, it seemed to me unwise to inject thisele the matter with me, after I had presented the objections to it, which I did with great feeling and probably some irritation, he said: ”I knew the view you would take of it, but, unfortunately, every arguramme I have outlined in this statement is purely a partisan one and one whose value I cannot recognize at this time I must not count the effect of a move of this kind upon my own personal political fortunes I anizance of the fact that by reason of our attitude on Panama Tolls our treaties are discredited in every chancellery of Europe, where we are looked upon as a nation that does not live up to its plighted word We land on Panama Tolls, but it will be all the reement even when it entails a sacrifice on our part The men ere parties to this treaty, like Joseph Choate, all agree that we have been indulging in hair-splitting and that we have done a great injustice to England I ought not, therefore, to be afraid, because of the antagonisms that will be created, to doa great wrong We cannot expect to hold the friendshi+p of the world, especially of England, France, and japan, if we are to treat agreements not as inviolable contracts, but as nored when h the Hearst newspapers, will cry out that I have surrendered to England, that I a to hand over to Europe a quasi-control over the Panama Canal
As a matter of fact, we are in bad by reason of our attitude on Pana nations of Europe, and soency may arise where it will be found that the reason for their withdrawal of friendshi+p for us was our petty attitude in this e, that the leaders of our party will be found in opposition, but I et this and try to work the matter out so that at least I shall have cleared ht a great wrong”
When the President concluded his stateainst his adht be reflected in the returns of the Congressional elections to be held that year He replied by saying: ”I have calculated every element in the situation and I have concluded where the path of duty lies If we begin to consider the effect upon our own political fortunes of every step we take in these delicate n relations, America will be set adrift and her word questioned in every court in Europe It is ireement that America subscribes her naotiated it”
On March 5, 1914, the President addressed Congress and asked for a repeal of Panama Tolls and ian to burn His party leaders expressed their opposition to the repeal in open, honourable, and vigorous fashi+on and the fight was on Now that the leading Democrats in the Senate and House had left us, it was necessary for us to reorganize our forces at once This task devolved upon er ton, and that sturdy Republican froht we had a anization in the trenches, prepared to ht of our enemies
The President was adaht down on hians and froroup of newspapers which presently were to appear as the chief supporters of Gerainst the repeal were unusually bitter, and even though Elihu Root, leading Republican senator, in a brilliant and effective speech took his stand by the President and against the recent Republican Ad Nevertheless, the tolls exeust, 1914, and especially after Von Beth and characterized the treaty between Gerave a certain satisfaction to those who stood by the President for the sanctity of treaties
Sir Edward Grey, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, co upon the action in the House of Commons said: ”It has not been done to please us, or in the interest of good relations, but I believe froovern nations to make relations better must never, when the occasion arises, flinch or quail frohts in a strictly fair spirit”
CHAPTER XXII
REFORMING THE CURRENCY
I have bitterly resented at tiotistical, self-willed, and so wedded to his own ideas that he not only does not invite suggestion frouided by it
I feel that ht to speak frankly in the reat man, he is firmly set in his opinions He holds and cleaves to them with a passionate devotion and tenacity but only after the fullest consideration of all the facts and inforain I have seen hiument in a matter that he had been previously disposed to favour
And what of his attitude toward those who caue with him on some vital matter in which he had for attitude of the doctrinaire or the le idea I recall a case in point He was discussing the revenue situation with Representative Claude Kitchin of North Carolina, at a time when it was the subject of bitter controversy in the ranks of the Democratic party The President and Mr Kitchin held radically divergent views on this ht to lead the party in one direction and Mr Kitchin openly pursued an opposite course I was present at this conference No warm friendshi+p existed between these two men; but there was never any evidence of hostility in the President's attitude toward Mr Kitchin He listened politely and with patience to every arguorously put forward to sustain his contention in the ehammer blows often dealt by Mr Kitchin The President replied to Mr Kitchin's arguments in an open, frank manner and invited him to the fullest possible discussion of the matter