coastwise American shipping from the payment of tolls is in direct violation of the treaty. I venture to say now that in the whole course of the negotiation of this particular treaty, no claim, no suggestion was made, that there should be any exemption of anybody. How could there be in face of the words they agreed upon? Lord Pauncefote and John Hay were singularly honest and truthful men. They knew the meaning of the English language, and when they agreed upon the language of the treaty, they carried out the fundamental principle of their whole diplomacy, so far as I know anything about it, and in the six years I was engaged with them, their cardinal rule was to mean what they said and to say what they meant. When the question of approving Senator Root's repeal bill was put at the close of the debate, at a very full attendance of members, there were only seven votes in the negative. A message was sent to Senator Root informing him of the Chamber's action, to which he replied expressing his pleasure in knowing that the Chamber was on the right side of the question. On March 5, 1914, President Wilson read his special message before a joint session of the two houses of Congress in which he asked for repeal of the exemption clauses on the ground that in his "judgment, very fully considered and maturely formed, that exemption constitutes a mistaken economic policy from every point of view, and is, moreover, in plain contradiction of the treaty with Great Britain." The Chamber at once came to the support of the President, and, by request from Washington, sent a special committee to that city to appear before the Senate Committee on Interoceanic Canals and present the Chamber's attitude in the matter. The Senate Committee gave the Chamber's representatives a full and exhaustive hearing, at which the action of the Chamber in 1912 was presented in detail, and the economic side of the question in its relations to transportation by both water and rail was fully discussed. There is no doubt that the arguments of the Chamber's representatives had much influence in securing the final passage of the repeal bill which became law on June 15, 1914. President Wilson recognized the value of the service rendered by sending a letter to the Chamber in which he begged it to accept his assurance that he appreciated its action in supporting his position on the question. CHAPTER XXII RAPID-TRANSIT SOLUTION RECORD OF THE CHAMBER-THIRTEEN YEARS OF LEADERSHIP IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUBWAYS 1894-1907 No public service performed by the Chamber during its century and a half of usefulness ranks above its achievement in solving the problem of rapid transit. As early as 1868 the question of an underground system of transit began to engage serious attention and during the ensuing quarter of a century repeated efforts to evolve a satisfactory system were made, all of which, for one reason or another, ended in failure. A charter was granted by the Legislature in 1868 to the New York City Central Underground Company for the construction of a subway, but it proved to be impossible to raise the necessary capital. In 1872, the Legislature incorporated the New York City Rapid Transit Company, authorizing the New York Central Railroad Company to construct an underground road from the Grand Central Station to the City Hall. Criticism of this plan was so bitter that it was abandoned. In 1875, an act was passed under which the elevated railway system was constructed. This system satisfied public needs for about ten years, when the necessity for additional facilities revived the demand for an underground road. Mayor Hewitt took up the question in 1888, and endeavored, unsuccessfully, to induce the Legislature to pass an act for such a road. In 1891, the Legislature, yielding to a strong popular demand, passed an act under which a Rapid Transit Commission was appointed. This body evolved a system which could not be constructed because of the lack of responsible bidders for the contract. In 1894 the Chamber of Commerce took up the subject. If anything had been demonstrated conclusively by previous efforts, it was that private capital could not be induced to undertake the work. The Chamber, in the light of experience, looked about for other methods of raising money, and could find only one, that of the city credit. There had been public talk of municipal ownership combined with municipal operation. The Chamber adopted the idea of confining municipal participation to the furnishing of credit for construction, leaving to private interests the risks and burden as well as the profit of constructing, equipping, and operating the system. That separation proved to be the key to the rapidtransit problem, and the discovery was a public service of incalculable value, not only to New York, but to all other municipalities in the land. Credit for this discovery belongs to Mr. Hewitt. It was entirely his idea, Mr. Orr said in a speech at the annual banquet in 1904, that municipal credit should be a dominant feature of the enterprise. "That, to my mind, and, I believe to the minds of our colleagues of the Rapid Transit Commission," he added, "made our work a success." Under the experienced guidance of Mr. Hewitt, who had for many years been a zealous advocate of subway construction, and with the expert legal advice of Henry R. Beekman, afterward an upright, able, and honored judge of the Supreme Court, a bill was drawn and presented to the Legislature in which for the first time the proposal to use the credit of the city was made. The Legislature, naturally timid in the face of so unprecedented a departure, passed the bill but attached a proviso that before going into effect it must first be approved by the people of the State. A referendum on the question was submitted in the election of November, 1894, and approval was given with a large majority. The way was thus cleared for the new idea in rapid transit to be put into operation. |