clear, it would help the Liberal Government
(which needs help) and would be much appreciated if, before
February 10th, when Parliament meets, you could say a public word
friendly to our keeping the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty--on the tolls.
You only, of course, can judge whether you would be justified in
doing so. I presume only to assure you of the most excellent effect
it would have here. If you will pardon me for taking a personal
view of it, too, I will say that such an expression would cap the
climax of the enormously heightened esteem and great respect in
which recent events and achievements have caused you to be held
here. It would put the English of all parties in the happiest
possible mood toward you for whatever subsequent dealings may await
us. It was as friendly a man as Kipling who said to me the night I
spent with him: "You know your great Government, which does many
great things greatly, does _not_ lie awake o' nights to keep its
promises."

It's our turn next, whenever you see your way clear.

Most heartily yours,

WALTER H. PAGE.

From Edward M. House

145 East 35th Street,

New York City.

January 24, 1914.

DEAR PAGE:

I was with the President for twenty-four hours and we went over
everything thoroughly.

He decided to call the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to the
White House on Monday and tell them of his intentions regarding
Panama tolls. We discussed whether it would be better to see some
of them individually, or to take them collectively. It was agreed
that the latter course was better. It was decided, however, to have
Senator Jones poll the Senate in order to find just how it stood
before getting the Committee together. The reason for this quick
action was in response to your letter urging that something be done
before the 10th of February. . . .

Faithfully yours,

E.M. HOUSE.

On March 5th the President made good his promise by going before
Congress and asking the two houses to repeal that clause in the Panama
legislation which granted preferential treatment to American coastwise
shipping. The President's address was very brief and did not discuss the
matter in the slightest detail. Mr. Wilson made the question one simply
of national honour. The exemption, he said, clearly violated the
Hay-Paunce