New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-02-08
CANAL TREATY DISCUSSED.
MR.. MORGAN URGES RATIFICATION-OP-
POSITION IN THE SENATE.
TpY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE ]

by TELEGRAPH to THE IhlBONh-I
Washington Feb THE provisions Of the
Hav-Pauncefote Isthmian Canal Treaty were
discussed for an hour and half this morning
nv the members of the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations Senator Morgan, of Ala
bama the former chairman of this committee
and now the head Of the Committee on Inter
oceanic Canals. was asked by Chairman DAVIS
to give a general history of Central American
canal projects, and to explain the relation oorhe
to such projects by the new British-Amerlcah
treaty. Senator Morgan is recognized as per
haps the leading authority in Congress on All
questions relating to the construction OF an
Isthmian waterway-an enterprise which ne mas
championed for years with enthusiastic devotion
and energy. His opinion of the new convention
was therefore eagerly sought by his colleagues
on the Foreign Relations Committee, on whofh
the DUTY will fall of advising ratification or
rejection The Alabama Senator's statement 10
the committee showed him to be in entire SYM
pathy with the spirit and purposes of the treaty
lust concluded and he urged it's prompt ac-
ceptance by the Senate without qualification or
amendment
In Mr.. Morgan's view the Clayton -Bulwer
Treaty was material obstruction TO the build
ing of an exclusively American canal across the
Isthmds of Darien. and the removal OF that
obstacle by the conclusion of a supplementary
to the naturalization of the new waterway, MI.
Morgan considered that policy the only practica-
ble one inasmrch as the canal had to be cut
through foreign territory, and was only IN the
most fanciful sense continuation OF this couh-
try's domestic coast line" Chairman Davis
acquiesced in Senator Morgan's views, as did
most of the other committee members present
Though no action was taken to-day, 1t seems
probable that the treaty will be reported With
out any attempt at amendment.
Considerable opposition to the ratification OF
the Hay-Pauncefote convention in its present
form is reported to exist in the Senate. Some
Senators are said to wish to defeat the new
treaty because it recognizes the Valldlty OF tle
CIayton-Bulwer agreement But the reply Is
made that nothing the Senate can now do Will
annuI the obligations of that convention, tnat
the Buchanan Administration ADMITTED lts
vitality in 1860 and the Mckinley Adminlstra-
tion has now recognized its binding force IN
1900. and that no appeal on the Senate's part
from the Judgment of the executive prancn can
now unset he British claim that the provisions
of theii Clay yton-Bulwer Treaty have never an
nuIled themselves automatlcaIl
Two other points of objection are raised one
is that the canal is not TO be fortified and neid
in the military control Of the United States; but
on the other hand military experts here main
tain that no fortihcations are desired at tne
entrances TO the canal its use and control in
time of war depending rather on the haNd
bases in the Atlantic and the Pacific whlch COM
mand IL.
in transit through the canal from revolutionary
or other disturbances in the Central American
Republics supporters of the Hay-Pauncefole
convention declare 1t gives the United states
ample power through the provision that II shali
"nolice" the proposed fnteroceanic highway, and
they do not believe that its opponents can mus
ter strength enough to defeat the treaty.