The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1900-12-14
AS TO THE PENDING TREATY DISCUSS
Ed IN THE SENATE.
MANY QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Directed Toward Clearing Up Doubts
ON Eject OF the Treaty Regarding
United States flights I'm Central
Amerfca-Great Difference of Opin-
ion as to the True Meaning of the
Treaty Notice of Amendment to
Strike Out Clause Prohibiting Forth
1cation of the Canal.

Washington. December 1.-THE dis
icussion Of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty
lin the executive session of the senate
today consisted Of questions and an
Iswers directed towards clearing UP
doubts concerning the effect Of the
treaty, generally regarding the rights
of the United States in Central Amer
Iica.
Those who spoke included Senators
Foraker, Teller, Money, Mason, Spooner
I'd Beveridge.
Senator Beveridge asked as to effect
of the ratification of tie pending agree
Iment on three points; Firs., as TO the
provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer urea
|ty relating to the acquisition of terri
tory, whether that article still would
lbe in effect as far as it prohibits the
UNITED States from acquiring territory
jim Central America; secondly, in case
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty should be
ratified by the United States and then
accepted by, say, twenty other nations,
whether it could be modified without
the consent Of all the %signatory pow
|ers; third, as to the right of hostile
nations to station ships in the vicinity
|of the canal in case of it's construction
the Hay-Pauncefote agreement.
He said the second article of the
|Clayton-B ulwer agreement, not only ap-
|peared to guarantee the neutrality of
the canal, but to prohibit Notifications
land to stand in the way of either Great
britain or the United States acquiring
territory in Centra America.
Il 0~lf0 ~ IN "a
opinion. under the pending treaty the
United States would be stopped from
extending it's domain into Central
American territory, as the new nego-
|tiation did not abrogate that portion
of the old treaty. Senate Foraker ex-
pressed the opposite view, saying that
unquestionably the United States could
leXtend her domain into that region if
lit so be desired, just as England a
done in taking possession of the Mos
iquito country.
The Ohio Senator replied Affirmative
lily to a question from Senator Mason
as to whether the United States could
acquire n annex a South American
lcountry as we have annexed Hawaii,
with the complete assent of the coun-
try coming under our protection.
On this point Senator Lodge differed.
He said that under the new treaty we
tCo q ~ III SoAAS "ON~
led 10 secure and hold property in con-
INJECTION with the canal, blu not to ex-
tend out territory in the region of the
proposed waterway. He did not be-
lieve hat under the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty, eve as it was proposed to
amend it, there would be any authority
to fortify the canal permanently. He
did believe, however, that under that
instrument as it was desired by the
foreign committee to amend it there
would be ample provision for the de-
Tense of the canal by the American peo-
Senator Lodge also agreed hat
lif other powers should assent formally
to the agreement between the United
Estates and Great Britain the consent
of all to the modification or abrogation
of the treaty would be necessary.
Senator Teller announced his inten-
|tion to formally offer his amendment,
which he has already suggested, strik-
ling out the provision of the treaty pro-
|hibiting the fertilization of the canal.
Senator PenroSe his ppo
lsition to the new treaty without the
Teller amendment.