The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-02-09
OPINIONS At VARIANCE
Senators Differ Regarding the
Hay-Paun efote Treaty.
senator Hoar Explains His Attitude
ON the Convcntion-Mnny Think IL
should De Amended - Representa-
tive Hitt's niauc Position - Doe
trinc of Abrogntioa by Violation.


such chaotic state that it is impossible
to predict what Us fate will be. 1t is a
fact. however, that on the surface the
treaty now appears to have more friends
than opponents. That is. majority of the
Senate appear TO believe that a treaty OF
some kind with regard to the canal is a
| good thing to have. but it cannot fairly
be said that majority OF the Senate think
this particular treaty just as it stands Is
a good thing
| Indeed, some of its warmest friends and
admirers think now it should be amended
| just as they thought when. it was sub
mitted to the Senate last Monday. Sena.
! tor Hoar was reported as having said in
Mondays executive session that the terms
of the treaty were ambiguous, and should
be amended SO as TO make it clear that
the canal is to be entirely under the con-
troll of the United States, and that in time
of war this country would not permit the
use of the waterway TO It's own enemy, In
order to refute his critics. Mr.. Hoar yes
terday dictated this statement:
THE treaty may need a slight amend
ment. II requires the United States to
police the canal and enforce the treaty's
stipulations about it, and at the same
time forbids us to keep ships OF war there
in time of war between US and other pow
ers. There should be some provision for
force enough to maintain the stipulations
of the treaty even IL we are at war. But
if it be thought to require amendment ir
this regard it can easily be made as Lord
Pauncefote and Mr.. Hay are both in Wash
ington and the Senate is in session.
The treaty needs amendment but viii
1t be amended? Probably not by Lord
Pauncefote and Secretary Hay. as Senator
Hoar suggested. lecause the Secretary
has already stated o more than one per-
son since the treaty was announced that
an attempt to change it would be unsuc-
cessful and perhaps fatal. II must be rati-
fed or rejected as 1t stands. the Admins
tration thinks. Whether the Senate will
adopt an amendement in line with Sem
ator Hoar's idea cannot now be foretold.
At present the treaty is to lie dormant
until legislation for Porto Rico. Hawaii.
and perhaps Cuba and the Philippines is
disposed OF.
II is also the desire OF Senator Morgan
and other advocates of the Canal Construc-
tion bill to pass that measure first. Not be-
cause they fear the rejection of the treaty
they say, but merely because it has the
right of way. and they think it will retain
that right until the bill is disposed of.
In the mean time. the treaty will remain
in the hands of the Subcommittee on For
oign Relations charged with the work of
considering the relation to the Canal bill
and other pending measures. This sub
committee is composed of Senators Davis.
Lodge. and Morgan. and all are said to
be willing now to take the treaty just as
o stands
Until SOME report is made by this sub
committee or until the treaty goes before
tn Senate In some tangible shape, il will
be DIR -dt u not impossible. to say what
III happen it after it has been coolly
considered. UndOubtedly il would be rati-.
fed should tue vote be taken today. pos
sibly without ensndment but probably not
II may be hat after the first flush of en-
thlsissm over the brilliant diplomacy that
made the treaty fact has passed two
thirds OF the Senators will not be ready
10 swallow it whole.
Representative Pepper of Iowa. Chair
man of the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce. which reported the
pending Canal Construction bill, is openly
opposed to the treaty. He says it is a
surrender to England; that il abandons
the Monroe Doctrine. and that it would
certainly impair the value Of the canal |
when constructed. and he hopes it will be
rejected. Representative Hit. Chairman
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, COM
mends the treaty. and in doing SO lays |
down the somewhat novel proposition, |
novel at least in the way Mr.. Hit. who |
has devoted his life to study OF diplo- |
matte questions. puts it. He says:
The treaty provides for the abrogation |
of a treaty which should have been abro- |
gated long ago. While the provisions o. /
that treaty remained in force it would be |
impossible for the United States to con- |
struct the canal. The canal should be |
neutral. and the United States will secure |
sufficient from ii without fortifying it. As |
a commercial investment the construction |
OF the canal should prove highly remu- |
nerative investment. The stock in the |
Suez Canal was issued at $500. and now |
sells for S2.I00 This question of abrogat-
ing treaties is an easy one. 1t lies within |
the power of Congress to abrogate treaties |
whenever it sees fit, and il has done SO
several times.
"If the Clayton Bulwer Treaty had been |
with a less powerful nation We would |
doubtless have abrogated 1t long ago. had |
Congress so desired The power of Con-
gress to put an end to treaties has been
clearly established by the courts. which
have held that the courts have nothing to
do with the making or preservation Of
treaties. Inc rlgnt 10 make laws and
treaties is conferred in the same article of
the Constitution. and the body which makes
laws can make a law to violate a treaty
or treaty violating a law. All Congress
has to do to abrogate a treaty is to pass
a law violating the treaty. and 1t is abro-
gated. This has been done in the case of
China.
Representative Levy of New York is
drafting a bill which shall authorize the
President to enter into negotiations with
all maritime powers of the world 20 con-
tribute to the construction of the canal |
according to their tonnage. Mr.. Levy
thinks by this means all the countries
would be interested in the canal and its
neutrality would be assured. lie thinks it
will cost $500. 900. 600 instead OF $40 900. 900.
President Mckinley and Secretary Hay
yesterday expressed the confidence they
felt Wednesday that there was no real
cause for the encouragement they felt
when the treaty was first discussed last
Monday, and they now have every reason
TO believe it will be ratified without amend
ment.
The Governments Of Nicaragua and Costa
Rica have notified the State Department
that the Hay-Pauncefote agreement is sat-
isfactory to them, and have expressed
Willingness to begin negotiations for the
transfer to the United States of the ter
ritory through which the canal will pass.
All the Central American Republics have
expressed to the department their grati-
ication over the provision that the en-
frances OF the proposed canal shall not be
fortified.