The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-12-13

estimated expenditure The work of the
commission had cost a quarter of a million.
Why not wait? Why go it blind?
Mr.. Morgan said that the country had
reached a conclusion upon this question and
would not be satisfied, he thought, to see
this session pass without the enactment Of
legislation which would secure the building
of the canal Mr.. Morgan said Nicaragua
and Costa Rica recognized what was the
universal opinion of mankind that the canal
across the isthums must be built under the
protection, control and management of some
great maritime power. The terms of the
Menocal- -Cardenas concessions proved this.
The two sovereign republics became parties
to stock in the company when organized,
Nicaragua retaining per cent. of the paid
up stock and Costa Esica 2i1a per cent. They
had waived their sovereign rights in favor
of the Congress of the United States They
had waived them for the benefit of their
own countries in order TO accomplish that
without which they were the most minute
microscopic dots in the world. We stood
pledged in that treaty with Nicaragua TO
protect the canal Our armies must go there
if the rights of the canal were invaded.
The rights of an exclusive character pos
sessed under the treaty of 1867 were in vio-
lation Of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. But
seven years before Great Britain had pro-
cured treaty with Nicaragua identical in
terms so that the Clayton Buwer treaty
had vanished into thin air by Great Britain's
act. The main difficulty which confronted
us arose out of the fact that when Cleveland
withdrew the Frelnghueysen-Cabillo treaty
he expressly took the ground that it estab-
lished an entangling alliance and violated
the CIayton-Bulwer treaty. 'It could not
violate treaty that was dead" said Mr..
Morgan. 80 that Mr.. Cleveland, by his
first diplomatic act against the judgment of
Congress, gave vitality to treaty that
was dead"
A question was raised as to the language OF
the bill guaranteeing the neutrality of the
canal in case the United States were at war
with country. Mr.. Morgan said that the
language of the bill specifically excepted
such a case.
Mr.. Hoar differed with Mr.. Morgan. 1t
the United States were at war with Eng
land and England should dispatch hostile
fleet to San Francisco could that fleet pass
through without interruption? asked Mr..
Hoar Did the statement in the bin as to
the right of e United States to protect the
canal in time of war give us the right to
say the canal was not neutral, he asked.
Mr. Morgan said no nation would mis-
understand the language of the BILL but he
was willing to accept any language that
would make our right more specific.
Mr. Hoar suggested that the clause relat-
ing to the neutrality of the canal should
be amended so as to read: Except as to
nations at war with the United States"
Mr. Morgan said he would accept the
amendment. No senator should vote against
the bill on this account.
Mr. Morgan said the President, In whom
Congress had so wisely and confdingly in
trusted fund of $0OOOO,OOO to be used ''at
his discretion" could certainly be trusted to
hear and determine the objections of Mica
ragua or Costa Rica, or the stockholders
of the Maritime Canal Company. Mr. Nor
gan said his plea was for action This bill
did not seek to build the canal. He simply
placed the question in the hands Of the
President.
In reply to a question Mr. Morgan said
that he did not believe it would be compe-
tent for the United States independent or
any other corporation, to proceed to the con-
struction of the canal under the treaty or
1861
AT the conclusion of Mr.. Morgan's speech
the Senate at $40 p. m. adjourned.