Слике страница
PDF
ePub

effective united action upon national questions, it will take time to demonstrate.

Your delegates do not feel that it is their function to express an opinion as to whether our own Chamber should join the United States Chamber or not. In view of the Charter and By-laws of our Chamber, in view of our particular form of organization which differs largely from that of other commercial bodies, and in view of our historic policy of independent action, we deem it best that the question whether the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York should become a member of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States should be referred to the Executive Committee ; and we so recommend.

Respectfully submitted,

Howard C. Smith, )
WILLIAM LUMMIS, Į Delegates.

SERENO S. PRATT,
NEW YORK, November 1, 1912.

THE PRESIDENT.—Gentlemen, you have heard the report of MR. LUMMIS. It seems to me a very wise report. I think it would be an exceedingly unwise thing to decide that this Chamber should become a member of the United States Chamber of Commerce without at least very careful thought. This Chamber stands in a position so different from that of any other commercial body in this country that it is certainly possible, and it seems to me probable, that it can exert its great influence to more advantage if it is untrammeled by any association whatsoever.

WILLIAM H. DOUGLAS.— While I defer to the judgment of the President in his statements and while I agree with the delegates that it may be wise to refer this matter to the Executive Committee, yet as one of those who were instrumental in forming this national association, I think we should have an opportunity to express our views to the Executive Committee before they render any decision in this matter; and therefore, if it is agreeable to the Chamber I would like to have the President so announce, setting a time when those of us who are deeply interested in this movement can appear and give our views before the Executive ('ommittee.

THE PRESIDENT.-Such action will be taken if this motion should prevail.

The report was by vote referred to the Executive Committee.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LEGISLATION. EDMUND Dwight, Chairman of the Special Committee on Workmen's Compensation Legislation submitted the following preliminary report, and it was adopted :

To the Chamber of Commerce :

The Special Committee on Workmen's Compensation Legislation, appointed under the terms of the action taken by the Chamber at its meeting held October 3d, informs the Chamber that it has begun its investigation of this very important matter and will submit a report thereon at a later meeting.

In order the better to bring about equitable and uniform legislation on this subject, your committee believes it would be desirable to enter into correspondence, or conference, with other committees having the same object in view, and it asks for authority from the Chamber to do this.

Your committee also requests authority to attend the Conference on Workmen's Compensation Legislation for the State of New York to be held November 26th, under the auspices of the New York State Council of the National Civic Federation; and to represent the Chamber upon that occasion.

Respectfully submitted,

EDMUND Dwight,
FRANK E. LAW,
WALDO H. MARSHALL,
WILLIAM SLOANE,

Of the Special Committee on Workmen's Compensation Legislation.

NEW YORK, October 24, 1912.

ENCOURAGEMENT OF INDUSTRIES. LEWIS Nixon moved the following preamble and resolution which were referred to the Committee on State and Municipal Taxation :

Whereas, The commercial welfare of the city is conserved by uniform increase in the number and the continued betterment of productive establishment. Instances occur where managements desiring to provide new factories or extensions leading to greater efficiency in

the immediate and great increase in taxation and other burdens to locate elsewhere. Every new or improved factory is of far reaching influence upon the industrial life of our city, and in the perpetuation and efficiency of such establishments, every citizen should take a public interest. Every loss of a productive plant is a check upon the industrial growth of the city and in a measure a reflection upon the enterprise of its commercial bodies ; therefore be it

Resolved, That such committee as may be selected by the President of this Chamber be requested to investigate such conditions and to recommend such measures as by remission or reduction of taxes for a term of years or otherwise may attract new industries to the city and encourage the fullest development of existing establishments.

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF CHAMBERS.

The Secretary by direction of the President read the following telegram from the President and the Secretary of the Fifth International Congress of Chambers of Commerce :

“ Before crossing the Atlantic we felt it a duty and a pleasure to send you this message on behalf of all members of our successful Congress to confirm again ouș most courteous thanks for your generous and heartfelt co-operation. Your splendid and cordial reception will never be forgotten and will do much to strengthen friendly international relations. We add best wishes for your everlasting prosperity:

CANON-LEGRAND, President,
JOTTRAND, Secretary.'

PANAMA CANAL.

WELDING Ring, on behalf of the Committee on Foreign Commerce and the Revenue Laws submitted the following report and moved its adoption :

To the Chamber of Commerce:

At the meeting of the Chamber held October 3d, the following preamble and resolution offered by Mr. LEWIS Nixon, was referred to the Committee on Foreign Commerce and the Revenue Laws for consideration and report:

Whereas, The approval by the President of the United States of the Panama Canal Bill has been criticised by the foreign press and foreign commerical bodies as an act in violation of the HAY-PAUNCEFOTE Treaty; therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Chamber of Commerce of the State of New York approves and endorses the statement of the President that there is no provision in the HAY-PAUNCEFOTE Treaty that forbids the United States from regulating its commerce by remitting tolls on American ships using the Canal.

Your committee has given serious consideration to this resolution, and unanimously reports adversely to it; and recommends to the Chamber that it be not adopted.

(Signed)

WELDING RING,
HOWARD C. Smith,
EDWARD D. PAGE,
GEORGE GRAY WARD,
WILLIAM E. PECK,
Silas D. W'EBB,
GEORGE A. ZABRISKIE,

Committee on Foreign Commerce

and the Rerenue Laws.

New York, October 21, 1912.

REMARKS OF LEWIS NIXON, ESQ.

Mr. Nixon.—Mr. Chairman, I offered this resolution because as an American citizen I resented the fact that the press, many of the public men, and numerous commercial bodies of Europe had reflected upon the good faith of the United States. I need not call your attention to the fact that this Chamber is already upon record; and yet we have the remarkable instance here before us of the Foreign ('ommerce Committee asking you to reverse yourselves and to refuse to pass a resolution, which is an American resolution, without one word informing us as to their reasons for so doing.

The President of the United States, a jurist and a statesman, has taken a firm position upon this question. The Senate of the United States by a majority took also a decided stand upon this question. It is true that, in deference to a protest of a foreign government–certainly in bad taste, if precedents are to be counted—it confined the remission of tolls to the coastwise trade. The House of Representatives is also upon record. If the two branches of the legislative bodies of the United States and our President and State Department took this position upon a question of this sort, it certainly seems that it is befitting the dignity and the respect of this body at least to have some reasons advanced for rejecting a resolution which was put in good faith and which should have been passed.

Now, in view of the fact that this has happened, I think that I may be permitted to give some reasons why the resolution should pass.

The Hay-PAUNCEFOTE Treaty was negotiated because the CLAYTON-BULWER Treaty gave Great Britain a certain measure of control of the canal routes in Central America. While that treaty was violated in spirit and in letter by Great Britain, we have never challenged that particular question, and have not asked for the abrogation of the CLAYTON-BULWER Treaty, but have proceeded in good faith, realizing that if we were to build this canal with our money and on our territory, we should do it with our hands free. The new treaty was therefore negotiated, clearly superseding the CLAYTON-BULWER Treaty.

The preamble says that the HAY-PAUNCEFOTE Treaty shall be made without impairing the general principle of neutralization. So that the only thing in common between that and the CLAYTON-BULWER Treaty is the question of neutralization or neutrality; and naturally since this is a treaty drawn between two great countries, the understandings and interpretations of international law should govern the definition of various words used within such treaty.

Now, Article II. says that the canal may be constructed under the auspices of the Government of the United States, and that, subject to the provisions of the present treaty, the said government shall have and enjoy all rights incident to such construction, as well as the exclusive right of providing for the regulation and management of the canal.

Now, I wish to call attention to the fact that there has not been a fair presentation of Article III, to the people of the United States. We find it in every case where this treaty is discussed only one section of that article ever presented to the American people.

Article III. has no bearing whatsoever upon the commercial management and the carrying out of the joint use of the Panama Canal. The L'nited States adopts as the basis of neutralization only the rules substantially as embodied in the convention at Constantinople for the free navigation of the Suez Canal. Now, they are substantially as embodied. They are not the real rules. However, they should have been, seems to be the contention of our opponents. But here is the clause upon which all those who are opposed to the American idea, who through the dissemination of Tory ideas in this country wish to reflect upon the good faith of our nation. It says that the canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these rules on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any of such nations or its citizens and subjects, in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic, or otherwise. Such conditions and changes of traffic shall be just and equitable. Now this is section one of Article III. and the Tories stop here although the remaining five rules are co-related and must be considered together.

There they stop and they say that the United States, although having the right and power under this treaty to enjoy all the rights incident to such construction and make the rules and regulations, must treat itself exactly as every other country is treated.

Now, let us go on and read the rest of this section. “The canal shall never be closed nor shall any right of war be excerised or any act of hostility be committed in it."

Again “Vessels of war of a belligerent shall not revictualed nor take any stores in the canal except so far as may be strictly necessary,

« ПретходнаНастави »