Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-12-07
MORGAN ON THE CANAL
THE ALABAMA SENATOR SPEAKS
FOR FOUR HOURS
Independent Ownership Might Bring
on War With England, hut He
Was Not Deferred by That.

Senator Morgan spoke for four hours in
the Senate in executive session yesterday
afternoon on the Hay-Pauncefote treaty for
the abrogation of that portion of the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty. which relates to the
Nicaragua canal Senator Morgan made it
very plain in the course of his remarks that
while he was not opposed to the pending
treaty in almost any form, his principal, If
not his only concern. in that connection is
for the passage Of the canal bill, and he
allowed it to be very broadly understood
that he had engaged in the treaty discus
sion because of his conviction that there
We're majority of senators who would in
sist upon action upon the treaty as con-
dition precedent to the passage of the canal
bill. For this reason, he said, he was will
ing to discuss the treaty. He intinat ted
privately to other senator's however, that
he would not consent to the fixing of a
time for a vote upon the treaty until there
also could be time fixed for like action
upon the Nicaraguan canal bill.
In the course of his speech he said that
ne did not in reality consider that the treaty
need have any special bearing upon the
bill, and he believed it was competent for
the United States to proceed with the build
ing OF the canal regardless Of the treaty or
of Great Britain's wishes in the matter
but to satisfy other sena tors, and also to
meet the wishes of the Secretary of State
for whom he incidentally expressed the
highest esteem, he would consent to ac-
ton upon the treaty and do all he could
for it. He would vote for the agreement
whether it should be amended or not
though he would prefer that there should
be no amendment.
Discussing the question of the fertilization
OF the canal. Senator Morgan argued siren
uously against 1t both as ineXpedient and
unnecessary. He contended that Great
Britain was not the only power whose in
terests would be affected by provision for
fertilization, and said that Nicaragua and
Costa Rica had right to be considered in
that connection. Furthermore, in case OF
war everybody knew that the canal would
be protected to the fullest extent, 50 that
any provision whatever bearing upon this
point was needless.
Might Cause War.
He admitted. however, that he had no
doubt that if the United States should pro-
coed with the construction Of the canal
without first taking steps to secure its neu-
trality Great Britain would be grievousy
offended, and he thought it not impossible
that the offense would be considered sutti-
GENTLY grave to lead to hostilities between
the two countries.
DO You mean" asked Senator Beveridge,
that Notwithstanding the present friendly
relations between the countries England
might declare war If we should construct
the canal with our own means and in our
own way?"
Senator Morgan replied that he consid-
cred that result among the probabilities.
But he continued, Il should not be de-
tered by that circumstance What Eng
land would do. he said, of course was
mere matter of speculation, and, he added,
that he had only referred to this POSSIBLE
ity in order to emphasize his opinion that
the canal should be constructed in any con-
tingency. The American people. he said,
had mapped out that canal. and they were
not going to allow any obstacle no matter
how serious, 10 stand in the way. He be-
lieved that the administration that would
undertake to build the canal knowing that
to do meant war, would be Endorsed by
the people at large by a bigger majority
than that which Mckinley received over
Bryan IN the last election.
Senator Morgan was piled with many
questions by Senators Mason, Teller. Bev-
eridge, Tillman and others. Mr.. Mason
asked whether 1t was true that If the Hay
Pauncefote negotiation prevented the use
Of the canal by Great Britain in time Of
war the converse proposition that 1t also
prohibited such use by the United States
was not also true.
To this Mr.. Morgan did not make direct
reply, saying that he would take up that
point later in his discussion. In discuss
ing the points of the treaty with Senator
Teller the Alabama senator expressed the
view that the Clayton-Bullcr treaty is I'M
constitutional, and for this reason, If for
no other said it should be disregarded.