The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-03-10
Morgan's Minority Report.

Senator Morgan, later in the day. filed a
minority report opposing the amendment
of the committee. After announcing his
concurrence in the main, referring to the
history of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, Sem
ator Morgan proceeds to the consideration
OF that treaty as affected by the pending
agreement. He says that ''the extreme
contention of the government of the United
States has been that the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty is violable at our option. Not hav-
ing exercised that option, the treaty is
confessedly conclusive as TO the parts or
the agreement that have been executed,
and is operative as to the parts that re-
main in feri."
Referring to forme bills passed by the
Senate for the construction of the canal
by private companies, Mr.. Morgan says
that Great Britain never any
contention of conflict between the conces-
sions and the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. all
these objections being made by opponents
of the bill in the Senate. He invites at
tention to the fact that the pending treaty
is for the avowed purpose of removing any
objection that may arise out Of the forme
treaty to the construction OF the canal.
without ifapairing the general principles
of naturalization established In Article s
OF that convention" That general prin-
ciple." the Senator says. is all that Is left
OF the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, all others
remaining being removed by Article l Of
the pending treaty. He argues that under
this article Great Britain confers no right
on the United States as to anything in
Nicaragua or Costa Rica.
Then this convention, in Article g" he
| continues. proceeds TO define and promul-
gate into an agreement intended to be
worldwide in its operation the general
principle of naturalization established in
Article s of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty on
the basis of the treaty of Constantinople
relating to the Suez canal. Nothing is
given to the United States in Article 2 of
the convention, now under consideration
nor is anything denied TO us that is not
given or denied TO all other nations"
The senator then takes up specifically the
| proposed amendment, saying: But the
| committee insists that under Articles s
and 10 of the treaty Of C~onstantinople a
provision is made in favor of Turkey that
is not secured TO the United States I'm the
convention" Quoting the articles of that
treaty referred TO. the senator says. by
| way of m
IF We had a possession that correspond
| ed in its geography with the Red sea, or
| the western coast of Arabia. the force OF
the proposed amendment would be more
apparent. But We nave no such posses.
sion near Nicaragua. and have no need &c
| reserve a special right TO defend IL or any
| other possession. Turkey made no reser
walton OF a right TO defend Co~nstantinopl
when she reserved her right TO defend hei
coast on the Red sea, which Is an approach
| 10 the canal. The undersigned does not ad
NIT the proposition that when we agree
| that the Nicaraguan canal shall not b,
| fortified as "A point OF invitation for hos
| tilities or a prize for warllke ambition W,
must also provide for the right TO defend
our own country or the coast OF California
hy express provisions In a treaty will
Great Britain. removing objections tina
may arise from the Clayton BuIwer treaty
! Such a reservation Is entirely supcrfiuou.