The Portland daily press., 1900-02-07
SENATE DISCUSSES TREATY
some Doubt Expressed That 10 Provides
for an American Canal.

Washington, February 6-Soms Of the
Senators are inclined 30 crfticizs the
canal treaty. Senator Hoar was particu-
larly critical In his comments. He saih
that from the reading u appeared 10 him
to ambiguous; that this rights Of this
country were not we'll defined. He said
he hoped tho commitsss would give II
thorough consideration and make suoh
alterations that there could be no doubt
that 10 Was TO no IN merioen canal,
and that In time Of war this country
would not permit the use Of the water
way TO 10 enemy. He spoke Of the iu-
constituency Of the United States policing
the canal and then agrssing 70 prov l.
sion that would make II impossible for
the Unitsd States 70 polios the canal II
at any time We became boiligsrsnt. He
wanted distinctly Americas canal, one
that would not oaly add TO our commse-
cial supremacy but b. our strength In
time OF WeE
Owing 10 Mr.. Hoar's position on the
oaussd some sarpriss, bus there wss no
doubt about bis Amsriosnisna on tbs
canal question.
senator Hawlsy, long . warm sdvo-
O. b Of the canal, also refsrrsd 10 this
point and said IL was imperative that tho
troll OF tbs United States, not only In
time OF psaos but In time OF war. II
there was any other agreement there WAS
little use, he thought. In Abrognting tbs
Clay ton Bulwsr treaty. The canal was
needed to protect the Unit"d States and
the United States was 10 have no more
rights than any other nation. 10 was
useless to consider che canal a. . thing
Of value from military standpoint.
: Senator Platt Of Connecticut took much
the same view. de expressed the hope
American canal In every sense Of the
world, and that nothing would be lsft In
the treaty that would cast doubt up
on the authority OF the United States or
it's powsr 70 deal with the water way
a. iJ saw fit In time Of war.
Senator Davis. chairman OF the commit
tee on foreign relations, said his com-
mittse would certainly give the treaty
careful consideration. and he deprecated
criticism until the document had boon
printed and studied. Mr.. Davis made
q motion TO remove the injunction OF
secrecy from the treaty. but 1t was voted
down on the ground that ~ Its provi-
sions were not satisfactory IL might be
nscessary 10 negotiate another oonvsn-
tion.
One prominent Senator told . reporter
tonight that the sentiment OF tbs Sem
ate was In favor Of canal constructed
under su3h guarantees Of neutrality that
mons Of the rights Of the United States
could be interfered with In time Of war.
"If," said be, 1.-THE treaty does not
80 provide, 1t will be amended 90 that the
United States win have full authority
under the treaty to say 10 an enemy In
time of war: Here Is the canal; u you
want to pass through 1t, you may do 90
II you can force your way The United
States does Eos care to fortify the canal.
Ii would probably be unwise TO do %.
but II war comes with any other power,
80 far as that power Ia concerned, we
shall send our battlsships there and
say: Thus far shalt thou 60, but no
further
"Ths Susz Canal" continued this SEN
ator, sis supposed 10 be q neutral water
way. It's neutrality IL guaranteed by
Great Britain and France. but In case
Of q war 20 which she was party, Great
Britain would not permit her enemy 10
use that canal. SO u win be with this.
The Amer loan people will not permit MS
to tie our hands In such bad bargain,
and the treaty. II 10 really provides for
this, will be amended"