The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-04-06
CANAL TREATY CONSIDERED.
SENATE DISCUSSED HAY-PAUNCE-
FOTE CONVENTION.

The Talk Was i'm Executive Session.
Morgan Made the Leading Speech
in Opposition to the Fertilization
Neutrality-suspicious. 1t Unnecces-
sary and said in Case of Emer-
Eency We Could Take Control of II
Anyhow.
Washington, April Son motion Of
Senator Davis, the Senate to day con-
sidered the -Paunceforte treaty for
the modification of the Clay-Bulwer
treaty behind closed doors.
About three hours were spent in dis
cussing the amendment to the treaty
made by the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations providing that "none of the
conditions and stipuations in sections l.
@ 3, and 8 of article 2. shall apply to
measures which the Uuited States may
find it necessary to take for securing, by
its own forces. the defense of the United
States, and the maintenance of public
order:'
Senator Davis opened the debate with a
general statement in support of the
treaty, but referred TO the omission of
any provision permitting the United
States to defend its property, which he
characterized as a palpable error and an
omission with which the country would
not be satisfied.
Mr.. Plat of Connecticut said the amend
ment was unnecessary.
Mr.. Lodge of Massachusetts, pleaded for
it, saying we should lose no opportunity
TO provide for safeguarding cur interests
in all exigencies 4hat may arise.
Unnecessary, Says Morgan.
Mr.. Morgan of Alabama, occupied most
of the executive session. His speech was
a plea for neutrality as the best guaran-
tee of the safety and usefulness of the
canal He said it was to be a highway for
the commerce of the nations, and that
the proposed amendment would not only
fail to provide for it's protection, but
might be the means of causing complica-
tions which otherwise never could arise.
He contended that if this amendment
was inserted it would require not only
Notifications and the maintenance of
troops probably at both ends of the canal,
but also the maintenance of battleships,
coaling stations and supply depots in that
vicinity. The provision was calculated
in times of emergency to make the ter
mini of the canal great battle grounds,
and invite complications with other na-
tons which would be avoided in case OF
the maintenance of absolute neutrality.
He also contended against the necessity
for the amendment as a precautionary y
measure, arguing that in case of war we
would take possession of the canal with
out any previous agreement.
I'm case of war" he said I'VE would
almost certainly assume that the other
nation to the controversy had broken the
agreement and act accordingly"
Mason Wants the Amendment.
Asked by Senator Mason IL he thought
it would be consistent on the part of
Great Britain to fortify Jamaica and sus
prevent our terrifying the mouth Of the
canal Mr.. Morgan replied that the neu-
trality provision only extended TO the
three-mile limit, and not TO a place SO
distant as Jamaica. Fortifcations OF out
lying possessions, he said, were constantly
going on, and the good faith of no nation
could be attacked because of them.
During the controversy Senator Wolcott
asked several questions indicating his OPP
position to the amendment, while Senator
Mason by the same course indicated his
opposition to the treaty. without the
amendment. Neither of Them, however,
made any affirmative statement