The Portland daily press., 1900-12-22
/ CANAL TREATY.
Statement By Senator
Lodge.
Nothing Offensive to
England Intended.
American People Will Insist on Con-
trolling Canal.
Desire To Be Rid of
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.
Nothing Unreasonable Asked
BY Amendments.
Askah

Washington, December Ex-senator
Lodge, who had charge of the Hay
Pauncefots treaty in the Senate, today
made the following statement;A )
"Ihe Ssnats amendents are very i'm
portant, but they are also very simple.
"Let me say first. that the amendments
were not dictated by hostility toward
England, and still less, we're they in any
degree a reflection upon the sscrotary Of
state. The amendments were made by
the Senate solely because in Its opinion
they were necessary for the interests of
the United States for the avoidance of
any question as to the control OF the
caral and consequently for the sake of
peaceful and harmonious relations with
the rest OF the wo rid on that subject in
the future.
"The first amendment Is a simple dec
laration that the Clay tom Bulwer treaty
ceases TO exist and is superseded by the
Hay -Paunoefots treaty. Tie object OF
the latter was to remove the former as
an obstacle to the construction of the
canal. The American people desired to
be ria OF the Clayton Bnlwer treaty
finally and beyond question and TO full
fill their wish Is the purpose of the first
amendment
Under article III. of the Hay y-Paunce-
fote treaty, as it stood, we are clearly
bound Il engaged In war to per NIT a
hoetile fleet, II IL succeeded in getting
inside the three mile zone, to pass un-
moiested through the canal, 1t was
solemn promiss to hostile tiest to use
the canal. That promise we either in
tended to keep or else we made 1t know
ing thet under the stress of war we
should break 1t. II we meant to keep
1t then it was a promise no nation ought
to make. Ii we knew that we should
not keep 1t in time OF war, then 1t was
only fair and honest to relieve ourselves
Of the obligation In the treaty itself. This
was ths purpose OF the second or Davis
amendment which entirely disposes Of
any such promise and which follows ex-
astly in nrinoipls and al most exactly In
words article \. of the Suez convention
which reserved similar rights to Turkey,
whoss interest in tina Suez canal is
trivial compared to ours in.that proposed
in Nicaragua.
The third amendment strikes out arti-
Gle ILL.,, by which We engaged to invite
other nations to adhere TO the treaty and
thereby beoome-parties to it. Had there
been no CLAYTON -Bulwer treaty, we should
have negotiated with no one except
Costa Rica and Nicaragua as to building
the canal, With England, owing to the
Clayton. Bulwer treaty, we were obliged
to treat, but as we expect Europe to
keep out of this hemisphere 1t seemed TO
the Senate unwlse. = however
liberal the intention, to invita- European
nations to share in an American treaty
and thus give them the right TO meddle
In American affairs at any point.
''Suoh are the purposes of the thres
amendments which in no way derogate
from the intention OF the United sta tss
that this canal shall be neutral high
way for the worlds commerce.
1--WE relinquish the righs to erect per-
manenu fortincations and although there