The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-02-25

| Sewell to inquire why the United states
| would need a force of 10000 men IN
| Cuba, stating his. belief that we d1d
| not need any force there since there
were no Spanish soldiers to fight and
to inquire further how the government
was going to keep a force on that ISL
| and after peace with Spain had Tor
mally been declared. He declared that
the Cubans had exercised great con-
troll and our troops were not needed on
the island.
Mr.. Sewell-We have had peace in
Cuba because we have had large
force there. Those people are a turbu-
lent people. They will have revolutions
constantly. / believe we shall have
war with them after while.
Mr.. Foraker-l do not think we will.
Continuing his argument. Mr.. SeWell
said: We cannot go outside OF our
lines in the Philippines. The situation
is serious These people, who are tur-
hulent and intractable, must be put
down. If l We're the president, I would
send a force there that would be suf-
fcient to put them down sharply and
quickly"
Mr.. Lindsay of Kentucky interrupted
Mr.. Sewell, saying that it had been re-
ported in the public press that GER
tain senators. some of whom were
)
mittee and some of whom We're not,
had agreed upon compromise army
reorganization bill which met the APP
prevail of the administration.
IF that be true suggested Mr. Lind
say, will the senator say whether he
is addressing his remarks to the COM
promise measure or to the bill reported
by the republican members of the COM
mittee of which he is one"
Il believe" replied Mr.. Sewell, "that
what the senator suggests is probably
true. There will be a compromise army
measure, but l am addressing my re-
marks to the bill reported by the COM
mittee.'
The reading of the river and harbor
bill was then proceeded with without
objection. The Nicaragua canal
amendment was reported When the
amendment had been read, Mr. Raw
Inns of Utah called attention to the
fact that there was no provision for
the ratification by the senate of any
treaty that might be made with Mic
aragua or Costa Rica for right of way
for the canal.
Mr.. Frye replied that no treaty was
provided for.
Mr.. Rawlins said he was of the opin-
ION that the question was one to be
dealt with as a separate measure. He
then made the point Of order that the
amendment was not in order because
II provided for general legislation.
After a long discussion of the point of
order the vice president awaiting him
self of the rules of the senate, submit
ted to the senate the question, rs the
amendment in order, and shall it be
submitted to the senate?" The ayes
and noes were demanded and the
amendment was decided to be in order,
81 to Z.
Mr.. Vest then raised the question of
relevancy OF the amendment and de-
manded the ayes and noes. It was de-
clded to be relevant, As to 12 Those
voting in the negative were Allen.
Bate, Clay, Cockrell, Daniel McLaur-
IN, Pascoe, Pettigrew Rawlins, Roach,
Teller and Vest
At this point bill relating to the en-
Try OF lands IN Greer county, Oklahoma,
was passed. Mr.. Spooner offered an
amendment to the Nicaragua canal as
follows:
Ihat If the president shall be unable
to secure from the governments of Mica
fagua and Costa Rico such concessi ,ns
as Wlll enable the United States to build
and perpetually own and control said
canal, the president is authorized to
negotiate for control or right to con-
struct, maintain and perpetually con-
troi some other canal connecting the
president is required to negotiate for
the abrogation or modification of any
ana all treaty obligations, if any such
exist as snail in anyWise interfere with
the construction, ownership and per-
petual control of any such canal"
Mr. Frye, in charge of the bill, ac-
cepted the amendment and it was
agreed to. Mr. RaWlins argued against
the canal amendment. At the conclu-
n hi Il
amendment striking out the appropria-
ton for the purchase or the right-of
way for the canal. The amendment
was defeated, As to 5. The amendment
was supported by Messrs. Bate. Petit
grew, Rawlins, Turley and Vest.
Mr.. Pettisrew said he had no idea
the canal would be built under this
amendment He maintained that $115,-
10000 would not pay for it's construc-
ton, nor. in his opinion, would s215. OOO,-
900 build it. The canal must either be
made neutral absolutely and unfortfied,
or we must fortify it at an expense of
hundreds of millions.
In the course of his argument Mr..
PettigreW declared that for half the
money for which this canal of doubtful
eXpediency" would cost could be con-
structed transcontinental railroad
owned by the government, which would
confer greater Denent upon the people
than any such canal as was proposed.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Pettigrew's re-
marks the Nicaragua canal bill amend
ment as amended, was agreed to with
out division.
Mr.. Frye, in charge of the bill. offered
as an amendment to the bill codif-
cation of laws relating to river and
harbor improvements, and it was agreed
to without being read and without III
vision. Mr.. Teller made a vigorous ar
gument against the bill, adverting par
ticularly to the Nicaragua canal fea-
ture. He denounced the canal particu-
larry, declaring that it was based upon
no intelligent information and investiga-
ton. No living man, he said, could say
what the canal would cost. 1t might
cost three hundred or four hundred
millions. He declared that congress was
going it blind" in putting the canal
project upon the river and harbor hill
and hurrying it through in such fash
ion.
The amendment was agreed to. plac-
ing the project at Everett, Wash. I'M
der the continued contract system, the