The age-herald., 1900-04-06
HAY-PAUNCEFOTE z TREATY IN SENATE The Hours Were Spent in DiS- CuSSing Amendment. MORGAN DID NOT CONCUR He Pleads for Neutrality as the Best Guarantee of Safety and Use-s
 fitness of the Nicara-.
 qua Canal
MORGAN DID NOT CONCUR

Washington April 5.-On motion of Sen
 ator Davis the senate today considered. the Hay y-Paunceforte treaty for the modifica-
 ton of the Clayton Bulwer treaty. About
 three hours was spent in discussing the amendment to the treaty made by the sen- ate committee on foreign relations, provid- ing that none of the conditions and stip-
 uations in sections 1, 2, g. and of ar
 ticle shall apply to measures which the
 United States may find it necessary to take
 for securing by it's own force the defense of the United States and the maintaining of public order"
 Senator Davis opened the debate with a general statement in support of the treaty. but directed his remarks especially toward l the explanation of the committee amend
 ment. He stated that in all other essential respects the pending treaty was similar to the treaty of Constantinople entered into in connection with the Suez canal. For
 some reason, however, the provision per-
 mitted the United States to defend it's property was omitted. In the Suez canal treaty such a provision was entered in the interest of the Sultan of Turkey and the Khedive of Egypt. This omission was a palpable error, MT. Davis said, and he did not believe that the people of the United States would be satisfied with any arrange ment which left the government of this country to build a waterway between the oceans and did not give it the right in specific terms to defend it.
 Morgan Did Not Concur
 Senator Morgan, the only member of the committee on foreign relations who did net concur in the amendment, made the prhnci-
 pal speech in opposition to it. Senator
 Platt of Connecticut and Senator Stewart
 of Nevada both came out against the
 amendment. MT. Platt made the point that the amendment was unnecessary and
 therefore undesirable. Senator Lodge made
 brief plea for the amendment Senator
 Morgan's speech was a 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 commerce of the nations, and that the proposed amendment
 not only would faM to provide for As pro- tection, but might be the means of causing
 complications which never could arise if
 the amendment was not inserted. The con-
 ditions, he contended, were entirely dissim- liar from those connected with the Suez canal, Turkey possessing territory In the immediate vicinity of that canal and the United States having no such possession
 within thousands of miles of the proposed
 Ncaraguan canal.
 He therefore thought the restriction superfiuous, and contended that 1t indicated
 disposition to grant to Great Britain
 powers over which that country did not at tempt to assert. Furthermore he contended that if the amendment was inserted it would require not only Notifications and
 the maintenance of troops at probably bota ends of the canal, but also the maintenance of battIeship coaling stations and supply depots in that vicinity. The provisions were 1 calculated in times of emergency to make | the termini of the canal great battle grounds and to invite complications with | other nations which would De avoided in case of the maintenance of absolute neu- | trdlity.
 1 Against the Amendment
 He also contended against the addition of | the amendment as precautionary meas l ure, arguing that in case of war we would | take possession of the canal without any | previous agreement to that effect. 'If," he said, "I should get in a 6sti- | cuff wlth another fellow, and he should strike me l would certainly strike back without stopping to read any previous agreement that HiISIb nave WIul ny dil- tagonist to the contrary. In the case of
 war, we would most certainly assume that other nations to controversy had broken the agreement accordingly" Asked by Senator Mason if he thought it would be consistent on the part of Great | Britain to fortify Jamaica and stil prevent 1 our fortyfying the mouth of the canal, | MT. Morgan replied that the neutrality pro- l vision only extended to the three-m:le limit 1 and not to a place so distant as Jamaica | Fcrtihcat tions of outlying possessions, he | said, were constantly going on, and the l good faith of no nation could be attacked l because of them. l During the controversy Senator Wolcott
 asked several questions indicating lis op- | position ito the amendment, while Senator | Mason by the same coure indicated lis op- | position to the treaty without the amend- | ment Neither of them however, made
 any affirmative statement