The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1900-12-26
IN CONGRESS- .,


WASHINGTON, Dec. Ex-senator
Pauncefote treaty in the Senate, talked
freely last evening regarding the meas.
ure. He said "Let me say first that
the amendments were not dictated by
hostility toward England and still less
were they in any degree a reflection
upon the secretary of state, whose pa
triotism, purity of purpose, knowledge,
accomplishment and high achieve
ments in dealing with our foreign rela-
tons especially in China, are fully and
cordially recognized by men of all par
ties and all shades of opinion in the
Senate. The amendments were made
by the Senate solely because n its
opinion they were necessary for the in
terests Of the United States for the
avoidance of any question as to the
control of the canal, and consequently
for the sake of peaceful and harmonious
relations with the rest of the world on
that subject in the future. The vote
by which they were adopted shows
this. The second or Davis amendment
passed by vote of 65 to II and the
other two were adopted without d.
vision.
1.-THE first amendment is a simple
declaration that the Clayton
treaty ceases to exist and is superseded
by the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. The
object of the latter was to remove the
former as an obstacle to the construc-
ton of the Isthmian canal. Some good
judges thought that the Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty did this completely as it
stood. Others believed that certain
portions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty
still remains in force. The American
people desired to be rid of the Clayton
Bulwer treaty finally beyond question.
under article ii of the Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty as it stood, we were clearly
bound, if engaged in war 10 permit a
hostile fleet, if it succeeded in getting
inside the three mile zone, pass un-
molested through the canal This may
or may not be practical question and
it is OF no consequence whether it is or
not. 1t was solemn promise to per-
init q hostile fleet to use the canal.
That promise we either intended to
keep or else we made it, knowing that
under tne stress of war we should
break it, then it was promise no ma
ton ought to make. If we know that
we should not keep it in time of war,
then it was only honest and fair to re-
lieve ourselves of the obligation in the
treaty itself. This was the purpose of
the second or Davis amendment which
entirely disposes of any such promise
and which follows exactly in words ar
ticle X of the Suez convention which
reserved similar rights to Turkey,
whose interest in the Suez canal is
trivial compared to ours in that pro-
posed in Nicaragua.
''The third amendment strikes out
Article III, by which we engaged to
invite other nations to adhere to the
treaty and thereby become parties to
it. Had there been no Clayton. Bulwer
treaty we should have negotiated with
no one except Costa RIGA and Mica
ragua 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, it seemed to the Senate
unwise, however excellent and liberal
the intention, to invite European ma
tions to share in an American treaty
and thus give them the right to NEEDLE
in American affairs at any point.