The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-12-06
EARLY Action Urged by Mr.. Lodge, i'm
View of Prospective Isthmian
Canal Legislation.
SPEECH BY SENATOR LINDSAY
WHO SAID NO PROVISION WAS MADE
FOR FORTIFICATIONs.
No Danger Of Britain Acquiring Land
on the Isthmus If the Clayton
Bulwer Treaty BE Abrogatcd.

Pauncefote treaty concerning the Mica
ragua canal was the subject of a few
minutes consideration to-day by the Sem
ate committee on foreign relations. Which
committee has charge of the treaty in the
Senate The treaty already has been re-
ported by the committee. and 1t was there
fore only taken up in an informal way and
for discussion only. No conclusion was
possible except to decide to press the ques-
ton in the Senate, and there was sub
stantial agreement upon the wisdom of
this policy. There is no division in the
committee except on amendments, although
Senator Bacon did not manifest any great
concern for the passage of the treaty in
any shape. No vote on any subject con-
nected with the treaty was possible in the
committee, but the discussion revealed the
fact that the committee is evenly divided
on the question of amending the document
in accordance with the provision reported
during the last session of Congress pro-
viding for the fortitication OF the proposed
canal. The committee stands as follows:
Clark, Republicans, and Daniel, Bacon and
Money, Democrats: against 1t, Messrs.
Frye, Cullom, Foraker and Wolcott. Re
publicans, and Morgan. Democrat. The
advocates of both lines of policy each ex-
press the opinion that the opposing side
will in the end surrender
Ot6ldtOI IOuSC NdC outJtNttt W "a
questions during the presentation of his
explanation of the treaty. Senator Bever-
idge asked whether 1t was not true that
the abrogation of the the Ciay hs Isn6;pr
treaty, would have the effect of permitting
Great Britain to acquire property in the
area affected.
Senator Lodge replied i'm the negative,
saying that it was well known to all that
the H~ay-Pauncefote treaty, while abro-
eating the Clayton-Bulwer treaty so far
- - - h. .frA Sn%An md
binds this country, still leaves England
bound by its terms. For this reason he
was sure there need be no apprehension
on that score.
Senator Lodge discussed the amendment
suggested during the last session of Con-
gress by the committee on foreign rela-
ions providing that none of the provi-
sions of the first five sections of the treaty
should be construed as applying to meas
ures which the United States may find Ii
necessary to take for securing by it's own
forces the the defense of the United States
and the maintenance of public order" The
senator urged that this amendment had
the effect of giving greater assurance to
our own people and was a necessary safe
guard.
At this point Senator Lindsay. of Ken
lucky, interjected a question, and in doing
so made quite a statement as to what he
said he considered a popular misapprehen-
sion as to the effect of the amendment. 81
find" he said, that most people appear to
think that this amendment provides for
the fertilization of the canal. whereas Ii
does nothing of the kind, as a reading of
il will demonstrate" He then quoted from
the amendment. showing that it applied
specifically to only Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
of Article 2 of the treaty. He claimed that
it only provides in the most general way
for the protection of the rights of the
United States. He called attention to the
fact that, while the treaty of CONSTANT
nople applying to the Suez canal had been
used as the basis for the pending treaty,
only the first seven articles of IL had been
inc0rn0rafa6 in the HaV-PaunCpfnrQ
agreement, leaving out Article 10 Of that
agreement, which gives to the Sultan of
Egypt the right to defend the interests of
that country in connection with the Suez
canal.
Replying, Senator Lodge said that he had
not cOntended and did not contend that the
amendment conferred specifically the power
to fortify the canal. The great benefit of
the amendment was found, he said, In the
fact that 1T applies to the first section
copied from the Constantinople agreement
providing that the canal shall be free and
open in time of war as in time of peace
to the vessels of and of war of
all nations" The amendment, he further
said, was substantially in the language of
Article 10 of the Constantinople treaty, and
therefore might be expected to serve the
same purpose intended to be subserved by
that article with reference TO the Suez
canal. In conclusion he urged early action
on the treaty as of great Importance. be-
cause of the general desire to go on with
the Nicaragua canal legislation. He did
not, however, indicate any time for taking
a vote on either the treaty or the com
mittee amendment.
Senator Money, of Mississippi. made a
brief speech in general opposition TO the
treaty, but indicating that he might vote
for 1t II the amendment was retained,
though not satisfied. he said. that the
amendment would make the document en-
tirely satisfactory. Upon the whole, he
thought the United States would best pro-
mote its own interest by proceeding to con-
struct the canal without asking the aid or
consent of any other country.
During the executive session, i'm which
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was under con-
sideration, several comparatively unimpor-
tant treaties with other countries, largely
South American, were laid before the Sen
ate and referred to the committee on for
eign relations. Some of these were reci-
procity treaties and others extradition
agreements. One of them was a reciproc-
ity agreement with Ecuador and another a
treaty with Denmark providing for rec
iprocity with the island of Santa Cruz.
Later in the day a second executive ses-
sion was held, but no business was trans
acted beyond the reference of several NOM
nations TO the proper committees.