The San Francisco call., 1897-01-23

would give to the treaty immediate con-
sideration and deliberation with a careful
review of existing treaties which it N light
affect. He had received from all parts of
the country kilograms and letters i'm ply
ing that the committee was holding back
the treaty and defeating that great object
of public desire. He declared with much
emphasis that there was no such purpose
on the part of any mem ber Of the COM
mittee, but that the committee would give
to the treaty full and careful considera sion.
Allison (R.) OF Iowa asked Sherman
how long the negotiations had been in the
hands OF the Secretary OF State.
Sherman was not able to give the
time exactly, but said that the treaty had
been a long time under consideration.
The Senate certainly could not be blamed
for not acting Immediately on treaty
which had been discussed a year or two or
perhaps longer. He understood that Sec
retary Gresham had taken part in the
negotiations.
Hoar spoke again to the effect that the
matter had been considered between the
two Governments for more than twenty
years, directly or indirectly. and that Mr..
Gladstone himself had expressed opposl-
ton to it in the House of Commons
twenty-five years ago.
The idea," be added impetuousIy, ''of
saying 10 the United States Senate, If
you 40 not dispose of that treaty in
twenty-four hours you are to have spears
jam med into you, is one to be repelled.
what are you going to do about lt1'
GRAY (D.) of Delaware asked in a tone of
calmness that contrasted with Hoar' s
manner.
Hoar-I think we are going to point out
to the very excellent, worthy and we'll
meaning men who are doing this that the
matter is still in course OF diplomatic dis
cussion between the two countries, and
that it is unwise for them to attempt to
affect that diplomacy. Ii we have 1t
pointed out TO them they will see it them
selves and will desist.
Gray-I think that the Senate of the
United States will perform its duty with
due deliberation whether the intem perate
criticism ceases or not.
Cullom, a mem ber of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, SAID that he was in &C.
cord with the views of Hoar. There had
been three meetings of the com mittee
since the treaty had been received. 1t had
been received at the first meeting and
laid over until the second. AS some men,
bers of the committee were absent at the
second meeting the matter had been laid
over to the next meeting.
There was no disposition on the part of
tho committee to delay action on the
treaty a amoment after the committee was
far as he himself was concerned, he be-
lieved in the general proposition en-
braced in the treaty, but was unwilling to
vote for a treaty so extensive in its scope
until he had fully satisfied himself that
he was acting in the interest OF the United
States, as we'll as of the world. He wanted
to be satisfied that the treaty was not
tying up the United States in way not
to be expected. When satisfied OF that he
vva tn
before.
Lodge (R.) of Massachusetts said that he
was extremely glad that his colleague
(Hoar) had said what he had said, be-
cause there was good deal of msunder-
standing. While ali Senators, he thought,
agreed with the principles involved, they
might disagree as to the meaning and
effect of some of the provisions of the
treaty.
There were grave differences of opinion
as to whether under this treaty great
question OF National policy, which has
been the American policy for years, like
the Monroe doctrine, was involved in it or
not There were questions whether the
Nicaragua canal bill, now under consider
alton In the Senate, was involved in it.
These were not questions which the Com
mittee on Foreign Relations or the Senate
would dispose of in two or three days.
Hawley (R.) of Connecticut advocated
careful consideration of the treaty in COM
mittee, and in discussing the general SUBJ
iect said it was matter for congratula-
lion that the United States had forced
Great Britain to arbitrate an old quarrel
with Venezuela.
Sewell (R.) of New Jersey urged that
the committee take time enough TO ascer-
tain the full scope of this treaty, so that
they might understand thoro ghly all the
questions that might be concealed within
its te xt.
Stewart (Pop.) of Nevada saw little rea-
son to apologize for refusing to obey the
demands of an imperious public expressed
in its first clamor. This treaty was a mat
ter of such vast Importance that it must
necessarily consume time. The United
States. he said, was not on equal terms
with Great Britain in making an interna-
tional treaty, and he proceeded. despite
the rules OF the senate, to discuss the
merits of the case, and criticized the Sc
lection of a European umpire. Europe
was a family of states. Its sovereigns
were related by blood and associated in
interests and sympathy. A European
monarch acting as umpire under this
treaty would naturally be governed by his
SURROUNDINGS He did not believe q treaty.