New-York tribune., 1900-12-12
EFFECT OF CANAL TREATY.
MANY QUESTIONS ASKED AND AN
SwERED IN THE SENATE.
Divergent VIEW EXPRESSED AS TO THIS
CoUNTRY's RIGHT TO ACQUIRE TERRI
TORY IN CENTRAL AMERICA

CoUNTRYs RIGHT TO ACQUIRE TERRI
TORY IN CENTRAL AMERICA
Washington. Dec. 11.-There were no set
speeches on the Hay -Pauncefote Treaty in the
executive session Of the Senate to-day Such
discussion as there was consisted Of questions
and answers directed toward clearing up doubts
concerning the effect OF the treaty generally
garding the rights of the United States in Cen
trail America The discussion started by
Senator Beveridge. who announced his desire TO
have more light on the effect Of the pending
treaty on the questions disposed Of for the time
by the Clayton-Bulwer convention. His ques-
tions brought out replies from Senator Lodge.
in charge Of the treaty. and number of Sepa-
torial lawyers found occasion to take part in the
controversy which ensued. Those who spoke in
cluded Senators Foraker Teller. Money. Mason
and Spooner
Senator Beveridge did not state his views.
but asked for information as to the effect OF the
ratification of the pending treaty on three points
The first Of these related to the provisions OF
the Clayton-Bulw Treaty regarding the acqui-
sition Of territory. He wanted TO know with ref
erence TO that article whether it still would be
in effect so far as it prohibits the United States
from acquiring territory in Central America
Second, he desired information as to whether in
case the Hay y-Pauncefote Treaty should be rati-
ned by the United States and then accepted by.
say, twenty other nations. IL could be modified
without the consent of all the signatory Powers.
HIS third inquiry related TO the right of hostile
nations TO station ships in the vicinity Of the
canal in case of its construction under the Hay
Pauncefote agreement.
THE CLAYTON -BULWER AGREEMENT
In presenting his inquiries Senator Beveridge
quoted a portion Of the second article Of the
Clayton-Bulwer agreement, basing his first
question largely upon it, Referring to that arti-
Gle OF the old 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 Central America
In that article he said. the two contracting par
ties agree that neither will occupy or fortify
or colonize or assume or exercise any dominion
over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast
or any part OF Central America; nor will either
make use Of any protection which either affords
or may afford, any alliance which either has
or may have to or with any State or people. for
the purpose Of erecting or maintaining any such
fortifcations, or of occupying fortifying or COL
cnizing Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito
Coast or any part Of Central America or of as
suming or exercising dominion over the same"
This clause had raised doubt in his mind as
ne DSleVe0 II naQ IN the minds or others and he
thought il should be cleared up
Replying TO the first Of these inquiries Senator
Lodge said frankly that in his opinion under the
pending treaty the United States would be
estopped from extending its domain into Central
American territory. the treaty did not
abrogate that portion Of the old treaty.
FORAKER AND LODGE DISAGREE
Senator Foraker expressed the opposite view.
saying that unquestionably the United States
could extend its dominion into that region if it
so desired, just as England had done in taking
possession of the Mosquito country The Ohio
Senator replied affirma lively TO a question from
Senator Mason as 10 whether the United States
could acquire and annex a South American
country, as 1t has annexed Hawaii with the
complete assent Of the country coming under its
protection; but on this point Senator Lodge diff
fered from his colleague on the Committee on
Foreign Relations, as he had on the matter pre-
sented from another point Of view by Senator
BeVerldge- Mr.. Lodge said that under the
treaty this Nation, Of course would be allowed
10 secure and hold property in connection with
the canal, but not TO extend its territory in the
region OF the proposed waterway. In reply 10
other questions, he said that he did not believe
that under the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty. even as
II was proposed TO amend il, there would be any
authority 10 fnrtify the canal permanently. He
ment as il was desired by the Foreign Rela-
tons Committee TO amend il there would be
ample provision for the defence of the canal by
the American people. Senator Lodge also agreed
that if other Powers should assent formally TO
the agreement between the United States and
Great Britain the consent Of all to the modifica-
tion or abrOgation of the treaty would be neces-
sary.
Senator Teller announced his intention for
nally TO offer his amendment, which he has al
ready suggested, striking out the provision Of
the treaty prohibiting the fortifcaton Of the
canal Senator Penros= announced his opposi-
ton 70 the treaty without the Teller amendment.