202 



CONGRESS. (THE NICARAGUA CANAL.) 



policy? Yet this is the Republicanism of to-day. 

 It living, would they be Republicans? And the 

 commissioners sent there have blocked this legis- 

 lation in the interest of the sugar planters, who 

 want to secure slave labor to work their planta- 

 tions, while they are selling their sugar to the 

 American people and paying no duty upon it, 

 resulting in a profit to them in remitted duties 

 alone of $10,000,000 a year." 



Mr. Perkins, of California, said: 



" Mr. President, early in January I introduced 

 a bill similar to the one now pending. It was 

 referred to the Committee on Immigration, who 

 took it up and duly considered it. A short time 

 subsequently a like bill was introduced into the 

 House of Representatives, passed that body, came 

 to the Senate, and was referred to the Committee 

 on Education and Labor, of which I have the 

 honor to be a member. It was duly considered 

 by that committee, and referred to the Commit- 

 tee on Immigration. That committee took the 

 House bill, amended it, and it has been upon 

 our calendar for several weeks. 



" I really feel greatly disappointed, and I be- 

 lieve it will be against the best interests of the 

 people of this country if this bill should fail to 

 become a law. There is no reason why the people 

 of any Territory of the United States or any 

 State "in the Union should be exempt from the 

 provisions of the law which provides that no 

 contract labor can come into the United States. 

 As a matter of fact, the people of Hawaii are 

 to-day importing into those islands thousands 

 and thousands "of Japanese peons and other 

 servile laborers, for w r hose labor they are con- 

 tracting for one half aye, for one third of what 

 the beet-sugar raisers of California and Nebraska 

 and the cane-sugar raisers of Louisiana are pay- 

 ing for their labor." 



The Nicaragua Canal. This project came up 

 for consideration early in the session, and a bill 

 was discussed at some length, and passed the 

 Senate Jan. 21, 1899, to amend the act incor- 

 porating the Maritime Canal Company of Nica- 

 ragua and to aid in the construction of the 

 water way. The House of Representatives failed 

 to act on it. The subject is an old one in Con- 

 gress. The act of Feb. 20, 1889, simply incor- 

 porated a company for the purpose of building 

 a ship canal from ocean to ocean through Nica- 

 ragua, and that company secured concessions 

 and began the work. Jan. 10, 1891, Mr. Sher- 

 man, of Ohio, introduced a bill to amend this 

 act, providing for an issue of bonds by the com- 

 pany to the amount of $100,000,000, with a guar- 

 antee by the United States covering principal 

 and inteVest. Dec. 23, 1891, Mr. Sherman intro- 

 duced a bill to aid the Maritime Canal Company 

 of Nicaragua, embodying the same scheme. Feb. 

 14, 1893, Mr. Peffer, of Kansas, introduced a bill 

 to amend the act incorporating the company by 

 striking out several sections and providing for 

 the issue of $100,000,000 in Treasury notes, full 

 legal tender, to meet the expenses of the con- 

 struction of the canal. Among the amendments 

 to this bill proposed was one authorizing the 

 President to make arrangements with Nicaragua 

 and Costa Rica to secure the rights of the Mari- 

 time Canal Company and construct the water 

 way, issuing $100,000,000 in bonds to procure 

 funds for the work. Aug. 15, 1893, Mr. Frye, of 

 Maine, introduced a bill to amend the act of 

 incorporation, Feb. 20, 1889, by authorizing the 

 issue of $100.000,000 in company bonds, with a 

 guarantee by the United States. Jan. 22, 1894, 

 an amendatory bill was introduced, in behalf of 

 Mr. Morgan, of Alabama, containing the same 



provision, and providing for the assignment of 

 stock to the United States, Nicaragua, and Costa 

 Rica. Dec. 30, 1895, Mr. Perkins, of California, 

 introduced an amendatory bill, providing for the 

 issuance of United States bonds to the amount 

 of $150,000,000 to cover the cost of construction, 

 and safeguarding the Government interest in the 

 enterprise by the ownership of nearly all the 

 capital stock. June 1, 1896, March 16, 1897, and 

 May 5, 1898, Mr. Morgan introduced bills on this 

 subject embodying the same policy the issu- 

 ance of 700,000 shares of stock to the United 

 States and a guarantee of bonds issued by the 

 Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua. May 

 25, 1898, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, introduced a 

 bill authorizing the President to take steps to 

 secure the right of way, and purchase, at the 

 cost of actual expenditures, the privileges of the 

 'Maritime Canal Company of Nicaragua, and so 

 prepare the way for the United States to con- 

 struct, own, and control the interoceanic canal 

 and its terminal harbors. June 20, 1898, Mr. 

 Morgan introduced another bill, in which it was 

 provided that the Secretary of the Treasury be 

 empowered to take 925,000 of the million shares 

 of the canal company stock, and that in pay- 

 ment Treasury warrants to the amount of $115,- 

 000,000 be issued to cover expenditure for canal 

 construction. The measure, as reported in the 

 Senate at the final session of Congress, reverted 

 to the bond scheme, and Mr. Morgan, of Ala- 

 bama, in the course of the discussion made the 

 following explanation of the scheme for Govern- 

 ment and corporate co-operation when the failure 

 of the Maritime Canal Company to carry out 

 the project seemed probable: 



" It will be remembered that when the Senate 

 of the United States first engaged in this work 

 and it was the first to engage in it it was upon 

 the motion of the Senator from Vermont, Mr. 

 Edmunds, in executive session, who suggested 

 that it was the duty of the Senate to inquire, 

 through its Committee on Foreign Relations, into 

 the condition and situation and prospects of the 

 Nicaragua Canal. 



" I need not go back to state to the Senate the 

 reasons which actuated that venerable and splen- 

 did Senator in this movement, for they have 

 been stated in letters here, in arguments, and 

 in statements, explaining the whole situation, 

 over Mr. Edmunds's signature and those of vari- 

 ous other gentlemen, including myself, and are 

 in the records of Congress. But a proposition 

 was brought forward in that committee to un- 

 load the coastwise commerce and other com- 

 merce of the United States of what was then 

 conceived to be a heavy burden, in consequence 

 of the fact that the Maritime Canal Company of 

 Nicaragua had to make a contract, as they in- 

 sisted, not being able, as they asserted, to make 

 a better one, to build the canal with the proceeds 

 of the sale of $100,000,000 of bonds backed by 

 $150,000,000 of their stock, which would amount 

 of course to $250,000,000 out of the active .re- 

 sources of the company, and would make a debt 

 of that amount upon the corporation, which it 

 was supposed and believed would necessitate the 

 raising of the freight upon vessels passing 

 through the canal to such a figure as would make 

 it unjust to the producers and manufacturers 

 and commercial men of the United States. 



" The company protested that they could not 

 raise the money on better conditions. They have 

 said : ' We were required by the concession to put 

 $2,000,000 of money into this canal the first year 

 after we began work, and we have done it. We 

 have now spent more than $2,000,000, and we are 



