The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-12-12
DEBATE ON THE TREATY.
The Hay-PauncefOte Agreement Dis
cussed by Senator's.


WASHINGTON, Dec. u.-There were no
set speeches on the Ha~y-Pauncefote treaty
in the executive session of the Senate to-
day. Such discussion as there was consist
ed of questions and answers directed to-
wards clearing up doubts concerning the
effect Of the treaty generally regarding the
rights of the United States N Central
America. This exercise was opened by Sen
ator Beveridge, who, taking the floor, an
nounced his desire TO have more light on
the effect of the pending negotiations Of the
Clayton-Bulwer negotiations. His questions
brought out replies from Senator Lodge, in
charge Of the bill, and after Mr.. Lodge had
concluded a humber of senatorial lawyers
found occasion TO participate in the contro-
yersy which ensued. Those who spoke in
cluded Senators Foraker, Teller, Money,
Mason and Spooner.
Senator Beverage did not announce his
own views, but asked for information as
to the effect of the ratification of the pend
ing agreement on three points. The first
OF these related to the provisions of the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty reiating to the ac-
QUESTION of territory. He wanted to know
with reference to that article whether it
still would be in effect so far as it prohibits
the United States from acquiring territory
in the Central Americas. Secondly, he
desired information as to whether. in case
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty should be rati-
fed by the United States. and then ac-
cepted by, say twenty other nations. IL
could be modified without the consent OF
all the signatory powers. His third in
UulrY related tn flp right of hostile ma
tions TO station ships in the vicinity of the
canal in case of its construction under the
Ha~y-Pauncefote agreement.
In presenting his inquiries Senator Bev-
eridge referred to a portion of the Sec
ond article of the Clayton-Bulwer agree
ment, basing his frst question largely on
treaty, he said that it not only appeared
to guarantee the neutrality of the canal,
but to prohibit Notifications and to stand
In the way of either Great Britain or the
United States acquiring territory In Gen.
trail America. This clause had raised a
doubt in his mind. as he believed ii had i'm
the minds of others, and he thought il
should be cleared up.
Replying to the first of these Inquiries.
Senator Lodge said frankly that in mis-
opinion, under the pending treaty. the
United States would be stopped from ex-
tending its domain into Central American
territory, as the new negotiation did not
abrogate that portion OF the old treaty.
Senator Foraker expressed the opposite
f4CWs 6ll lDdi INDEPENDENTLY the
United States could extend her domain into
that region III il so desired, just as Eng
land had done in taking possession Of the
Mosquito country. The Ohio senator re-
piled affirmatively to a question from SEN
ator Mason as to whether the United States
could acquire and annex a South Amer
lean country as We have annexed Hawaii
with the complete assent of the country
coming under our protection, but on this
point Senator Lodge differed from his col.
league on the committee on foreign rela-
tons, as he had on the matter presented
from another standpoint by Senator Bev-
eridge.
Mr.. Lodge said that under the new treaty
we, as a Nation, of course. would be al
lowed to secure and hold property in con-
nection with the canal. but not to extend
our territory Ia the region OF the proposed
waterway. In reply to other questions. he
said he did not believe that under the Hay
launcefote treaty. even as il was pro-
posed TO amend Ii, there would be any
authority TO fOrtify the canal permanently.
lie did believe. however, that under that
instrument as 1t was desired by the for
eign committee to amend IL. there would
be ample provision for the defense of the
canal by the American people. Senator
Lodge also agreed that IL other powers
should assent formally to the agreement
between the United States and Great Brit
ain, the consent of all to the modification
or a~brogation OF the treaty would be neces-
sary.
Senator Teller announced his intention
to formally offer his amendment. which
- tH1e IA1 tAeENtt[1T 81 hlllk u TIE
provision of the treaty prohibiting the for
tification OF the canal. Senator Penrose
announced his opposition to the new treaty
without the Teller amendment.
A State Department official said to-
Gay: There is no foundation whatever
of the story that this government has
received assurances from Great Britain
that the canal convention will. II ratified
by the Senate with the pending amend
ment. be accepted by the British Cabinet.
No such promise. suggestion or intima-
ton had ever reached the State Department
from any official source. and the depart
ment does not know what action the Brit
ish government would take in the event
hat the pending treaty is amended as
proposed. Every intimation. however. that
has reached here goes to show that the
adoption of any amendment would be re-
GREETED by the British authorities. Through
Observation-Disclosures. or some other cause.
the impression was conveyed TO the pub
lie as a result Of the. proceedings in Sc
cret session In the Senate. yesterday. IN
connection with the treaty. that Secre-
tary Hay had stated that he would re-
sign his office II the pending Davis amend