The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1900-04-06
ID P)RI|FY Or NOT
Hay Pauncefote Treaty in
Senate Secret Session.
MORGAN FOR NEUTRALITY
No Report of Commission
Senate's Open Session.

Washington. April Son motion OF Sen
ator Davis the senate today considered
the Hay Palncefote treaty for the modi-
hcation Of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.
About three hours were spent in discuss
ing the amendment to the treaty made
by the senate committee on foreign rela-
tons, providing that none of the condi-
tons and stipulations In sections l. ?. 3.
and of article shall apply to meas
ures which the United States may find
it necessary to take for securing, by its
own forces the defense of the United
States and the maintenance Of public or
DER"
Senator Davis opened the debate with
a general statement in support Of the
treaty. but directed his remarks especially
toward the explanation OF the committee
amendment He stated that in all other
essential respects the pending treaty was
similar to the treaty of Constantinopie.
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 a provision was
Inserted in the interest Of the sultan OF
Turkey and the khedive of Egypt. This
omission was a palpable error. Mr. Da-
Wis said, and he did not believe that the
people of the United States would be sat
isfied with any arrangement which left
the government OF this country to build
a waterway between the oceans ana did
not give 1t the right in specific terms to
defend IT,
Senator Morgan. the only member OF
the committee on foreign relations who
did not concur in the amendment. made
the principal speech in opposition to II.
He consumed the greater part of the ex-
ecutive session, Mr.. Davis speech being
comparatively brief
Before Mr.. Morgan began however. a
few brief statements were made for and
against the amendment. Senator Plat 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-
Outstanding among nations. we should
take into consideration the possibility OF
future entanglements and lose no oppor-
tunity to make provision for safeguard
ing our interests 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 it was to be a highway for the COM
merce OF the nations and that the pro
posed amendment not only would fan to
provide for it's protection. bat might be
the means Of causing complications which
could never arise if the amendment was
not inserted. The conditions. he contend
ed, were entirely dissimila- from those
connected with the Suez canal, Turkey
possessing territory in the immediate VI
cinity OF that canal and the United States
having no such possessions within thou
sands OF miles Of the proposed Nicara-
guam. He therefore thought the restrlc-
ton super1uous and c0ntended that IL IN
dicated a disposition to grant Great Brit
ain powers over US which that country
did not attempt to assert Furthermore.
he contended that if us am ndment wa
inserted it would require not only f0rtid-
cations and the maintenance Of battle
ships. coaling stations and supply depot
In that vicinity. The provision Wa- cai-
culated In times Of emergency to make
the termin Of the cana great battle
grounds and 70 invite complications with
other nations. which would be avoided In
case OF the maintenance q absolute neu-
;rality. He also contended against che
adoption Of the amendment as a precau-
,fonary measure arguing that IN case Of !
war We would take possession Of the canal |
without any previous agreement 10 that I
effect.
If" he said. Il should get into a h=ti- 1
.u1 with another fellow and he should 1
strike me. would certainly strike back 4
without stopping TO read any previous 4
agreement that might have with my an 4
-agonist 20 the contrary. In case Of a .
var we would most certainly assume that .
he other nation 10 the controversy had .
broken the agreement and act according
="
Asked by Senator Mason 81 20
thought Il would be consistent f.
IN the part a Great Britain
% fortfy Jamaica and stil prevent our .
CERTIFYING the mouth ~ the canal Nr
Morgan replied that the neutrality proyi- 4
sion only extended y the fhres-rils 1it 4
md not 10 q place 50 distant "a Jamaica 4
7ortihcations q outlying possasri-aa. re-
EaId, were constantly going on and the
rood faith o no nation could be attacked I.
,ecause OF thsTu
During the controversy Senator wolco,t
lske5 several quesfi9ns. indicating his op-
,osition 70 the amendment while Senator
Mason. by the same c1lrEe. Indicated be i
.mendment Neither of them. however.
made any Affirmative statement A. tha
lose q Senator &orEan's speech che SER
lts returned . ne consideration q sez-
sla'ive business. 20 one else besng pre-
JARED 70 speak CT the treaty
No REPORT At THIS SESSION /
{