The Topeka state journal., 1900-02-07
DELAY FOR THE CANAL.
Strong Opposition to the New Treaty
Developing Among Senators.

Developing Among Senators.
New York, Feb IA special to the
Herald from Washington says:
Immediate ratification of the Hay
Pauncefote treaty permitting the con-
struction of an isthmian canal by the
United States need not be expected.
Just enough opposition has developed
to the provision prohibiting the con-
struction of fortif1cations at the en-
frances to the proposed canal to pro-
woke discussion and thus delay action
on the treaty. A Careful canvass made
of the senate does not indicate, how
ever, that this opposition is sufficiently
strong to either secure the adoption OF
an amendment providing for fortifica-
ton to prevent the ratification of
the treaty without such an amendment.
Leaders on both sides appear to be well
satisfied with all of the provisions of
the treaty and they will try to have it
ratified without amendment.
The principal advocates of an amend
ment in favor of military defenses are
Senators Mason and Allen, who are
rarely in sympathy with anything done
by the administration. When the treaty
was first read, Senator Lodge seemed
to think such an amendment was desir-
able, but after conferences with other
senators he said the matter should be
very fully discussed before either the
foreign relations committee or the SEN
ate took action.
A meeting of the committee on for
eign relations has been called to con-
slider the treaty. Leading members of
this committee are quite willing to ac-
cept the treaty as it stands, but the
discussion may develop enough opposi-
ton to delay a report for another week
Suggestions that Secretary Hay was
tricked by Lord Pauncefote are laughed
at by leading members of the commit
tee, who have known of the negotia-
tiOnS and the reasons for adopting the
article nrOhihifinQ the construction of
Notifications.
1t is argued in behalf Of non-fortffi-
cation that. with an agreement signed
by all of the powers of the world for
the absolute neutrality of the canal in
time of war as well as peace, no de-
fenses will be necessary. The moral
obligations incurred by each nation
signing the naturalization agreement
will be as effective as guns in preserv-
ing the neutrality Any nation violat-
ing the agreement will have all the rest
of the world against it.
Those who think defenSeS Of the
ternini of the canal are necessary do
not consider that permanent fortifica-
tions are essential In time of war, it
is argued, the United States could, if
necessary, send a fleet of batt1eShipS to
each of the entrances and thus be able
to physically enforce neutrality if for
any reason it were feared it could not
be morally enforced.
To those who point out that Great
Britain is physically able to control the
Suez canal by her strong defenses at
Gibraltar, the answer is made that
with a naval base at San Juan. Porto
Rico, and the probable acquisition of
the Danish and Galapagos islands, the
United States will be in as good posi-
tion to offer military resistance to any
attempted violation of the neutrality of
the Nicaraguan canal as Great Britain
is connected with the Suez canal.
Discussion over the -Pauncefote
treaty may delay somewhat final action
on the Nicaraguan canal bill, but it is
the opinion of MesSrs. Morgan, Aidrich
and other leaders, in the senate, and
Mr. Hepburn and other leaders in the
house. that it will not prevent the
final passage of the bill this session.
If the treaty is ratified in its present
shape an amendment will have to be
made to the pending bill eliminating
the provisions contemplating the erec-
tion of Notifications at the ter1nini Of
the canal. If any delay occurs it will
be over these amendments.
Senator Morgan. the author of the
pending bill in the senate. says there is
no necessity for a, radical amendment
of the Hay-PauncefOte treaty.
There are some men in the senate
he said, who would propose an amend
ment to the ten commandments if they
were sent in here by Gold Almighty
himself I do not believe ary material
amendment to the pending treaty is re-
quired to protect our rights in the ca
nal. All this talk about fortifying the
canal to protect our interests in case OF
war is, to say the least, without reason
and should not receive serious consid-
Grafton.
1T is not contemplated to make the
site of the proposed canal an interna-
tional battle ground. No hostile power
is going to select the canal as the prin-
cipa1 point of attack upon the United
States. If it is the intention of our
government or the friends and promo
ters of the canal to convert it into a
battlefield, we might as well abandon
all further interest in the project. Any
foreign power making war on the Uni
ted States would not begin hostile op-
erations on the canal They would, in
all reasonable probability, make an at
tack on our commercial and business
centers further up the coast.
Il cannot see," added Senator Nor
gan, that Great Bri ain has gained
| any advantage over the United States
in the new treaty. According to my
understanding of carefully selected and
thoroughly comprehensive English
- rSS01