The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-12-19
Amendment Proposed by Mr.. Bard,
and n Resolution Offered by Till
man Changed and Adopted.
SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT
ON THE PRELIMINARY REPORT OF
THE CANAL COMMISSION
Protocols of Agreements with Costa
Rica and NicaraSu ua, and the Clay
ton-Bu1wer Treaty Discussed.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1s.-The friends of
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty occupied nearly
all of the time of the Senate In executive
session to-day, Senators Foraker and Nor
gan being the speakers.
Previous to the taking up of that treaty
the Senate. for the purpose OF clearing It's
calendar, disposed of several other treaties
of comparatively little Importance. Five
conventions in all We're ratified. Among the
documents thus disposed of was an agree
ment supplementary to the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty itself and extending the time with
in which it may be ratified. Under the
terms of the original treaty the time for
ratification expired five months ago. The
agreement favorably passed on to-day ex-
tends the time u,.til the 4th of March, dur
ing which the treaty may be completed.
Senator Lodge. who had the matter in
charge, manifested some anxiety over this
treaty and evidently was somewhat re-
lieved when it went through without dis
senting vote. The other treaties which were
ratified were as follows: Extending for one
year the time within which the commercial
treaty with Argentine may be ratified. Ex-
tending for year the time in which a
treaty with Great Britain for reciprocity
with Jamaica may be ratified. The new ex-
tradition treaties with Bolivia and Chilli.
When the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was
taken up attention was given to the resolu-
ton offered in open session earlier In the
day by Senator Tillman, calling for the
correspondence between this government
and the government of Colombia relating
to the right of the United States to con-
struct a canal across Colombia territory
The resolution was agreed to after it was
amended at the instance of Senator Nor
gan so as also to call for all the corre-
spondence with the Panama Canal Com
pany, including all offers on the part of
that company, and all negotiations with it
concerning the Panama canal.
Senator Bard, of California, gave notice
of an amendment he will offer to the treaty
providing that the United States shall have
the right to discriminate in favor of
American goods shipped through the canal
in American vessels. engaged in the coast
wise trade
FORAKER'S SPEECH.
Senator Forakers speech from first to
last was a defense of the Hay -Pauncefote
treaty. He praised in high terms Secretary
Hay, who, he said, is not only an accom-
plished gentleman and scholarly man, but a
patriot and statesman Of high order.
He had differed from the secretary in some
respects, he said, as to the policy to be
pursued, but any fair-minded man must
recognize that in negotiating the pending
treaty the secretary of state had accepted
conditions as he found them, and that in
falling into the policy of neutrality he had
only followed historic precedents. AS for
himself he had always favored an Ameri-
can policy in dealing with the question
Of the construction of the canal, but no
one who would give the least attention to
the subject could fail to see that the neu-
trail policy had been the policy of this coun-
| try in the past. Every administration since
| 1850 had given some recognition to the
| Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and that document
was to be found in the governments latest
| treaty compilation. To further show the
attitude of this Nation Mr.. Foraker quoted
| the fifteenth article of the treaty made be-
| tween the United States and Nicaragua in
regard TO the canal in 1867, as follows:
| 1.-The United States hereby agree to ex-
| tend their protection to all such routes of
| commerce as aforesaid and to guarantee
| the neutrality and innocent use of the
same They also agree to employ their in
| fluence with other nations to induce them
| to guarantee such neutrality and protec-
! tion."
What more definite and positive declara-
| ton, asked Mr.. Foraker, could be made
| for neutrality in dealing with the canal.
Hence, he argued that Mr.. Hay had mere
| ly acted in accordance with the established
| policy of the government in providing for
neutral rights in the proposed waterway.
| Mr. Foraker also contended that there is
| an implied reservation in the treaty as it
| came TO the Senate to protect the canal
| from enemies The treaty guarantees it's
| neutrality in time of peace, he said, but
we reserve the right to do with it as we
| see fit in time of war, except that we can
not fortify 1t. But, he went on, there Is no
prohibition against our closing it in war
| time. He found great significance in the
| difference between the language used in
| the Constantinople treaty relating TO the
Suez canal and the language employed in
| relation to the Nicaragua canal, and he
| dwelt on the fact that the Suez treaty con-
tains a provision that in time of hostilities
| that canal shall be open to the ships OF bel
| ligerents. although the Ottoman empire,
through whose dominion the canal was to
be constructed. should be one Of the bel
| ligerents. That provision had been omitted
from the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, Mr..
| Foraker said. and he argued that the omis-
sion could be interpreted in no way except
| as a concession of difference in intent. He
also contended for the safety of the canal
even though 1t should not be fortified;
| for II was absurd, he said, to suppose that
any enemy would attempt to sail its ships
through a canal 175 miles long and owned,
| controlled and policed by this country
| when actual hostilities were in progress.
In this connection he called attention to