The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-04-06
Committee Amendment Advocated by
MIR. Davis, but strongly OPP
posed by Mr.. Morgan.
PROTEST SENT TO THE PORTE
AMERICAN MEAT MUST NOT BE
BARRED WITHOUT CAUSE.
Admiral walker, of the Nicaragua
Commission, ct the state Depart
Observation-Disclosures Miscellany.

Senator Davis the Senate to-day considered
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty for the modifi-
cation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. About
three hours was spent in discussing the
amendment to the treaty made by the Sem
ate committee on foreign relations provid-
ing that none of the conditions and stipu-
lations in Sections l. q g. 4 and of Article
shall apply to measures which the United
States may find it necessary to take for Sc
curing, by its own forces, the defense OF
the United States and the maintenance Of
public order"
Senator Davis opened the debate with
general statement in support of the treaty,
but directed his remarks especially toward
the explanation of the committee amend
ment. He stated that in all other essential
respects the pending treaty was similar to
the treaty of Constantinople entered into in
connection with the Suez canal. For some
reason, however the provision permitting
the United States to defend its property
was omitted In the Suez canal treaty
such provision was inserted in the inter-
est of the Sultan of Turkey and the Khe-
dive of Egypt. This omission was a palpa-
BILE error Mr. Davis said and he did not
believe that the people of the United States
which left the government of this country
| to build waterway between the oceans
and did not give il the right in specific
| terms to defend it.
Senator Morgan, the only member of the
committee on foreign relations who did not
| concur i'm the amendment, made the princi-
| pal speech in opposition TO it. He consumed
| the greater part of the executive session,
| Mr.. Davis's speech being comparatively
| brief. Before Mr.. Morgan began, however,
| a few brief statements were made for and
| against the amendment. Senator Platt of
| Connecticut and Senator Stewart of Ne
vada both came out against the amend
ment Mr. Platt made the point that the
| amendment was unnecessary and, there
| fore undesirable. Senator Lodge made a
| brief plea for the amendment saying that
| however great the present confidence was
| in the power of neutrality and mutual un-
! derstanding among nations, We should take
| into consideration the possibility of future
entangiementS and lose opportunity TO
| make provision for safeguarding our inter-
| ests In all exigencies that might arise.
Senator Morgan's speech was plea for
| neutrality as the best guarantee of the
| safety and usefulness of the canal. He said
| 1T was to be a highway for the commerce
| of the nations and that the proposed
| amendment not only would fail to provide
/ for its protection, but might be the means
/ of causing complications which never could
arise If the amendment was not inserted.
| The conditions, he commended, were entirely
| dissimilar from those connected with the
! Suez canal, Turkey possessing territory in
| the immediate vicinity of that canal and
the United States having no such posses
| sions within thousands of miles of the pro-
| posed Nicaraguan canal. He therefore
| thought the restriction superfuous and
commended that it indicated disposition to
| grant to Great Britain powers over us
| which that country did not attempt to as
sert Furthermore. he contended that If
| this amendment was inserted ii would re-
quire not only Notifications and the main
! tenance of troops at probably both ends of
| the canal, but also the maintenance of bat
tleships. coaling stations and supply depots
! in that vicinity. The provision was calcu-
| lated, in times of emergency, to make the
| termini of the canal great battle grounds
| and to invite complications with other ma
| tions, which would be avoided In case of
| the maintenance of absolute neutrality He
| also contended against the adoption of the
| amendment as precautionary measure.
| arguing that in case of war we would take
| possession of the canal without any pre-
| vious agreement to that effect If he
| said, II should get into fisticuff with an
| other fellow and he should strike me
| would certainly strike back without stop
| ping to read any previous agreement that L
| might have with my antagonist to the con-
| trary. In case of a war we would most
| certainly assume that the other nation to
| and act accordingly"
| Asked by Senator Mason if he thought it
| would be consistent on the part of Great
| Britain to fortify Jamaica and still prevent
| our terrifying the mouth of the canal, Mr.
| Morgan replied that the neutrality provi-
| sion only extended to the three-rnile limit
and not to a place so distant as Jamaica.
| Fortifcations of outlying possessions, he
| said. were constantly going on and the
| good faith of no nation could be attacked
| because of them.
During the controversy Senator wolcott
| asked several questions indicating his OPP
| position to the amendment, while Senator
| Mason by the same course, indicated his
| opposition to the treaty without the
| amendment Neither of them, however
| made any affirmative statement.
| At the close of Senator Morgan's speech
/ the Senate returned TO consideration of ex-
| ecutive business, no one else being prepared
i to speak on the treaty.
| Admiral John Walker president of the
| Isthmian canal commission, called at the
State Department to-day to report to Sec
| rotary Hay the return to this country
from the isthmus of that part of the COM
| mission which was under his immediate
| personal conduct. The admiral stated that
| it would not be possible to resume the
| sessions of the commission until all the
| members had returned TO the United
/ States, and at present two of them are
| still on the Isthmus. one being at Darien,
| conducting explorations there. The con-
| clusiOn had been reached that the full re-
port of the commission cannot be ready
/ for submission during the present session
| of Congress, and the members are loath
/ to put in a preliminary report. Such re-
ports are, at best, unsatisfactory, in the
| view of the commission, and notwithstand-
| ing the degree of success attained in
| forecasting the detailed estimates of the
| cost of the Nicaraguan canal in the pre-
| lminary report submitted TO the last Con-
| gress, the commission regards the risk of
| such predictions as unwarranted in the
| present instance. The commissioners en-
ter an emphatic denial of the statement
| that their exploring parties were ham,
| pered, and in cases compelled TO abandon
| their work through the hostility of the
| semi-savage tribes that are found in some
| parts of Central America.
| Although the commissioners decline to
| formally commit themselves to the
| merits of the Central American canal
| projects the probable costs of their ex-
| ecution, IL is gathered that SO far the
| Nicaraguan projects are concerned, at least
| the results reached by the present COM
| estimate of probable cost submitted by
| the previous commission.
The President to-day sent the following
nominations TO the Senate: For promo
| ton in the army, regulars, corps of engi-
| neers. to be major. Captain John Mills. To
| be captain, First Lieutenant Herbert
| Deakyne. To be first lieutenant. Second
| Lieutenant Clark s. Smith.
Il