The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-04-06
DEBATE OVER THE TREATY.
DAVIS EXPLAINS THE NECESSITY
FOR HIS AMENDMENT.
Senator Morgan Is Strongly In Favor
of Neutrality for the Nicaragua
Canal. and Opposes All PROPOSE
tion. contemplating Fertilization

WASHINGTON, April Son. motion OF
Senator Davis. the senate today consider
ed the Hay-Pauncefote treaty for the
modification of the Clayton Bulwer
treaty About three hours were spent
in discussing the Amendment 10 the
treaty made by the senate committee on
foreign relations, providing that none of
the conditions and stipulations in sections
l. g. and ). OF article 2. shall apply 10
measures which the United states may
find II necessary to take for securing by
its own forces the defense of the United
States and the maintenance Of public or
der"
Senator Davis opened the debate with
n general statement I'm support OF the
treaty but directed his remarks especial
~ toward the explanation of the commit
tee amendment He stated that in all
other essential respects the pending
treaty was similar TO the treaty Of Con-
stantinople in connection with the Suez
canal. For some reasons. however. the
provision permitting the United States
TO defend its property was omitted. In
the Suez canal treaty such a provision
was inserted in the interest of the sultan
OF Turkey and the khedive of Egypt. This
omission was palpable error, Mr. Davis
said, and ne did not believe that the peo-
pie OF the United States would be salts
fed with any arrangement which left the
"A
waterway between the oceans and did not
give II the right in specific terms to de-
fend II.
Senamtor Morgan, the only member of
the committee on foreign relations who
did not concur I'm the amendment. made
the principal speech in opposition to II.
He consumed the greater part Of the ex-
ecutive session, Mr. Davis speech be.e
comparatively brief
Before Mr.. Morgan began, however a
Few brief statements were made for ana
against the amendment. Senator Plat ~
Connecticut. and Senator Stewart, OF Ne
vada, both came out against the amend
ment Mr.. Patt made the point that the
amendment was unnecessary. and there
Tore undesirable Senator Lodge made n
BRIEF plea for the amendment saving that
however great the present confidence was
N me power OF neutrality and mutual UNI
derstanding among nations we should
take into consideration the possibility az
the future entanglements and lose no op-
portunity to make provisions for safe
that rNisht arise
Senator Morgan's speech was a plea for
neutrality as the best guarantee of the
safety and usefulness OF the canal He
said II was TO be a highway for the com
merce OF the nations, and that the pro-
posed amendment not only would fail to
provide for Its protection. but might be
the means OF causing complications which
never could arise If the amendment was
not inserted. The conditions. he eontend
ed. were entirely dlssimilar from those con-
nected with the Suez canal, Turkey pos
sessing the territory In the immediate vi
entity OF that canal, and the United States
having no such conditions within thous-
canal
He therefore thought the restriction SUI
pernuous. and commended that II Indicated
disposition 10 grant to Great Britain
powers over us which that country did not
attempt 10 assert Furthermore, ne CON
tended that II this amendment was in
serted II would require not orly fortifca-
lions and the maintenance of troops at
probably both ends OF the canal, but also
the maintenance OF battleships, coaling
stations and supply depots in that vicinity.
The provision was calculated in times OF
emergency to make the termini OF the ca
nal great battle grounds and 10 invite
complications with other nations which
would DO avoided in case OF the mainte-
nance OF absolute neutrality.
lie also commended against the adoption
OF the amendment as a precautionary
measure. arguing that in case OF war We
out any previous agreement TO that eff
feet, III" he said, IL should get into "A
hsucun win another fellow; and ne should
strike me- | would certainly strike back
without stopping to read any previous
agreement that | might have with my
antagonist 10 the contrary In case OF
war we would most certainly assume
that tho other nation to the controversy
had broken the agreement and act ac-
Cordtnkly.
Asked by Senator Mason II he thought
It would be consistent on the part Of Great
Britain to fortify Jamaica and still pre-
vent our terrifying the mouth Of the
canal Mr. Morgan replied that the neu-
tralty provision only extended 10 the
three-mile limit, and not to a place SO
distant as jamaica
Fortihcations Of outlying possessions, he
said. were constantly going on, and the
good faith Of no nation could be attacked
because Of Thorn
During the controversy Senator VOL
colt asked several questions indicating his
opposition TO the amendment. while Sen
atOr Mason, by the same course. indicated
his opposition 10 the treaty without the
amendment. Neither Of them. however
made any affirmative statement
At tho close OF Senator MorEan's
speech the senate returned to the consid-
Grafton Of legislative business no one else
--------- 1880 ...--.L IL.