The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-01-21
Mr.. Fairbanks Confident Britain Will
AnnuI or Modify the Clayton
BuIwer Agreement.
FILlBUSTER In THE SENATE
NO VOTE ON THE CANAL BILL UNLESS
IT'S FRIENDS RALLY.
PepDery Speeches by by POpuIists and
Mr. GrOsvenOr in the HOuse-Mr.
Payne to BE Floor Leader.
special to the indianapolis Journal.

Special to the indianapolis Journal.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 20.-Mr Fairbanks
addressed the Senate to-day on the Nicara-
qua canal bill, his remarks being listened
to attentively. lie said in substance:
For fully fifty years the American peo-
pie have demanded the construction of an
interoceanic canal. At the present time the
construction of the canal is demanded with
than ever. The necessity for its cOnstruc-
tion Is so obvious that no one Is heard to
question the expedency of undertaking the
work AT the earliest date possible.
Il am in fun accord and sympathy with
the pending bill, though | do not entirely
approve of some of its provisions and de-
tails. The bill. it seems to me. is antago-
nistic to our treaty obligations. 1t plainly
cOntraveneS the Clayton-Bulw treaty. 1t
is insisted by some that that treaty is not
operative. that conditions have changed,
that 1t should no longer be regarded as haV
ing effect. ! am not one of those who hold
this view, for / am of the unalterable con-
Viction that IL Is a vital and living conven-
tiOn, in full force and virtue, and therefore
TO be faithfully kept and observed by the
the United States and Great Britain en-
gagged in 1850 that neither the ono nor the
other Will ever obtain, or maintain, for it
self, any exclusive control over said ship
canal Ca canal through Nicaragua, and
that neither will ever erect or maintain any
fOrtittcations commanding the same or in
the vicinity thereof.
Sir, is there any ambiguity or uncertainty
in this language? Can anyone reasonably
doubt its piIrnose? Nearly 'fiftv wears have
elapsed since its ratification, nearly half a
century since this solemn international en-
gagement. Is 1t in force to-day? If not,
when was it modified or annulled?
''Ihe treaty by its terms did not terminate
at any given date. There were not embodied
in ii any conditions, whereby an amendment
would be effected automatically. On what
rational ground do our friends who maintain
that the treaty is of no present force ius-
fhaNnEalvnGP There "a no
citation by Great Britain; there has been
no subsequent convention between the high
contracting parties. either modifying or an
nulling its terms and in no other way could
the engagement between them be termi-
mated.
OUR OBLIGATIONS.
II have too high regard for our country
to consent to any strained construction in
our favor of any treaty obligations / fully
recognize, sir, that the conditions which sug-
gested the treaty have changed with the
lapse of time and that what seemed neces-
sary and wise when it's was ratified, would
seem unwise and unnecessary to-day. This
does not, however, change our obligations
1t seems to me that the Clayton Bulwer
treaty but defeats the great purpose for
which it was intended, and that it can no
longer subserve the best interests of Great
Britain and the United States
Il would not sir, be disposed to give to
the pending bill my support because it con-
travened the Clayton-Bulwer treaty if I
believed that it would become law in its
present form. We have thus far been un-
able to adopt any amendment recognizing
the existence of the treaty and providing
that the work of construction shall not be
Undertaken until it shall have been modi-
fled through diplomatic negotiation 1t is
obvious that the bin must go to a confer
ence committee and there sucn modifica-
tions can be made as will observe our treaty
obligations and enable us to construct the
canal in some more direct and effective
manner lGfp al a
ent time.
4 had prepared the amendment proposed
by the senator from Louisiana (Mr. Caf-
fery), and for which / voted because it
seemed to me to be more simple and di-
rect in its provisions. 1t provided for the
modification of the CLAYTON -BulWer treaty
by negotiation for acquiring proper conces-
sions from the governments of Costa Rica
and Nicaragua, and for the construction and
maintenance of the canal through the direct
agency of the United States The defeat of
this amendment and kindred propositions
leaves nothing to be done except the adop-
tion of the pending bill
In supporting this measure, l do it with
the belief and expectation that an annul-
ment or modification of the Clayton Bulwer
treaty will be effected through diplomatic
channels. 1t is my conviction that Great
Britain will gladly meet the views of the
United States with respect to such mOdifica-
tion of the treaty as will enable us TO con-
struct and maintain inteIoceanic canal
under the direct authority and jurisdiction
of the United States. The friendly relations
between these two mighty powers were
never more cordial than to-day. and I be-
lieve that Great Britain will be pleased to
give her assent TO any needed and Just
notifications of the Clayton -Bulwer treaty.
We need not, sir, proceed by indirection
but directly and frankly conscious of the
Justice and reasonableness of our demand
and of the justness and entire friendliness
of Great Britain, which has been so signally
manifested in our recent history.
FAILED TO REACH A VOTE.
The Senate failed again to-day TO take a
Nrf,r ,,f
tor German. who is leading the Democrats
in opposition to the peace treaty, unless
amended. organized a flibuster against the
canal not that he wants to defeat the canal
BILL but that he wants to gain time on the
treaty. Hours at this stage of the session
are as days at the beginning. There seems
to be no chance of reaching a vote on the
canal unless its friends are ready to sit 1t
out with the opposition. No test of en-
durance has been attempted yet and it may
be that the friends of the canal bill are not
enough in earnest to adopt that drastic
method of forcing vote. Unless, however.
the effort be made Senator Davis may be-
come tired OF waiting and force the Senate
to take up the treaty He has given way
for three successive days, out of consdera-
tion OF Senator Morgan. who has the canal
bill IN charge. Besides Mr.. Davis is for the
canal as Mr.. Morgan is for the treaty. Nat
urally this makes each even more consid-
crate Of the other than usual.
over at the House end of the Capitol the
committee on commerce is giving daily
hearings TO people with canal schemes. The
Panama, the Cragin-Grace and the Mari
time canal people have been heard. and
there are perhaps others. all with the only
genuine Simon pure good things TO be had
in the way of an Isthmian canal. Together
the outlook for canal legislation this session
is not as bright as it might be. Its failure