The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-12-22
Object I'm Abrogating the Clayton
BuIwer Treaty Was to Remove Oh
stacies I'm Way of the Canal.
NO CAUSE FOR OBJECTION
GREAT BRITAIN's RIGHTS NOT DIS
REGARDED BY THE CHANGES.
What She II Asked by the Senate to
Do-Mr. Lodge of Opinion She VIII
Accept the New Treaty.

WASHINGTON. Dec. Ex-senator Lodge.
who had charge Of the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty in the Senate. to-day made the fol-
lowing statement:
THE Senate amendments are very impor-
tant. but they are also very simple, al
though there seems to be some misunder-
standing In regard to them. owing to the
fact that all the debates on the treaty took
place behind closed doors. Now that the
amendments and votes have been made
public by or1er of the Senate. 1t may not
be amiss to explain them briefly
Let me say. first. that the amendments
were not dictated by hostility toward Eng
land, and still less were they in any degree
a reflection on the secretary Of state.
whose patriotism, purity Of purpose,
knowledge. accomplishments and high
achievements in dealing with our foreign
relations, especially in China, are fully and
cordially recognized by men in all parties
and all shades OF opinion in the Senate.
The amendments were made by the Senate
solely because, in its opinion. they were
necessary for the interests of the United
States, for the avoidance OF any question
as TO the controi Of the canal. and. conse-
Quently, for the sake of peaceful and har-
monious relations with the rest Of the
world on that subject in the future. The
votes by which they were adopted shows
this. The second, or Davis amendment.
passed by a vote OF So to II. and the other
two were adopted without division.
"The first amendment is a simple decla-
ration that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty
ceases to exist and is superseded by the
Hay-Pauncefote treaty. The object of the
latter was TO remove the former as an OBJ
stacle to the construction of the isthmian
canal. Some good judges thought the Hay
Pauncefote treaty did this completely as 1t
stood Others believed that certain por-
tions Of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty still re-
mained in force. To allow this doubt to
continue would have been a grave mistake.
The American people desired to be rid Of
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty finally and be-
yond question This is a reasonable and
proper wish, and to fulfill Il is the purpose
of the first amendment
THE SECOND ARTICLE.
sUnder Article ii of the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty as it stood we were clearly bound,
IT it succeeded in getting inside the three
mile zone. to pass unmolested through the
canal This may may not be practical
question, and 1t Is of no consequence
whether IL is or not. 1t was solemn prom
ise to permit hostile fleet to use the canal.
That promise We either intended to keep,
or else We made 1t knowing that under the
stress OF war We should break it. II We
meant to keep 1t. then 1t was promise no
nation ought to make. IL We knew that
We should not keep 1t in time of war. then
1t was only honest and fair to relieve our
selves 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 principle. and almost exactly in
words. Article Y OF the Suez convention.
which reserved similar rights to Turkey.
whose interest in the Suez canal is trivial
compared to ours In that proposed in
Nicaragua.
THE third amendment strikes cut Article
III. by which we engaged to invite other
nations 10 adhere TO the treaty. and there
by become parties TO 1t. Had there been
no Clayton-Buwer treaty we should have
negotiated with no one except Costa Rica
and Nicaragua as To building the canal.
With England. owing to the Clayton-Bul-
wer treaty, we were obliged to treat but
as we expect Europe 10 keep out OF this
hemisphere IL seemed to the Senate unwise,
however excellent and liberal the intention,
TO invite European nations to share In an
American treaty. and thus give them the
right to lneddle In American affairs at any
peIrs.
.such are the purposes of the three
amendments, which in no way derogate
from the intention or the United States
that this canal shall be neutral highway
for the worlds commerce"
do you think England will accept or
reject these Senate amendments? the SEN
ator was asked.
THAT is a question 1 have been asked
many times, and upon which do not think
II would be right or proper for me to ex-
press an opinion was the reply. But I
think can. with propriety say a word as
10 our view OF the amendments. II is well
recognized In international law that when
the conditions under which treaty has
been made have been radically changed and
new conditions and new demands have
arisen. this fact is an ample ground for
seeking an abrogation or modification OF
the original instrument. The American peo-
ple desire 10 build and mean TO build and
control the isthmian canal They recognize
that the clayton-BuIwer treaty. made fifty
years ago under conditions no longer ex-
fstent, stands in the way. They have no
desire TO clear II from their path in a vio-
lent fashion BY formally denouncing II. or
BY passing laws and taking action In con-
travention OF its provisions They wish TO
remove IL by amicable arrangement in d
sut<abls and becoming manner. Tha Hay