Evening star., 1900-12-12
IN EXECUTIVE SESSION
TINE SPENT MOSTLY IN QUESTIONS
AND ANSWERS.
Senators Foraker and Lodge Differ
Regarding Interpretation of
the Canal Treaty.

Pauncefote treaty in the executive session
Of the Senate yesterday afternoon. Such
discussion there was consisted OF Ques-
tons and answers directed toward clearing
up doubts concerning the effect OF the
| treaty, generally regarding the rights OF
the United States In Central America. This
exercise was opened by Senator Beveridge.
who, taking the floor, announced his desire
to have more light upon the effect Of the
pending negotiations on the questions dis
posed Of for the time by the Clayton Bull
wer negotiation. His questions brought out
replies from Senator Lodge, in charge Of
the bill, and after Mr.. Lodge had con-
cluded a number Of senatorial lawyers
found occasion to participate In the contro-
versy which ensued. Those who spoke IN
| cluded Senators Foraker, Teller, Money,
Mason and SpoOner:
Senator Beveridge did not announce his
own views, but asked for information as
to the effect of the ratification of the pend
ing agreement on three points. The frst
OF these related to the provisions Of the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty relating to the ac-
QUESTION of territory. He wanted to know
with reference to that article whether 1t
still would be in effect as far as it prohibits
the United States from acquiring territory
in Central America. Secondly, he de-
sired information as to whether in case
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty should be rati-
fed by the United States Senate and then
accepted, say, by twenty other nations, 1T
could be modified without the consent of
all the signatory powers His third In
quiry related to the right Of hostile ma
tions to station ships in the vicinity of
the canal in case Of it's construction under
the Hay-Pauncefote agreement.
Acquisition of Territory.
In presenting his inquiries Senator Bev-
eridge quoted portion of the second article
of the Clayton-Bulwer agreement basing
his first question largely upon it. Referring
to that article of the old treaty he said
that it not only appeared to guarantee the
neutrality of the canal, but to prohibit for
tifica atoms and to stand in the way of either
Great Britain or the United States acquiring
territory in Central America. In that arti-
Gle he said, the two contracting parties
agree that neither will occupy, or fortify,
or coloniZe, or assume, or exercise any do
minion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the
Mosquito coast, or any part Of Central
America; nor will either make use of any
protection which either affords may af-
ford, any alliance which either has or
may have to or with any state or people,
for the purpose Of erecting maintaining
any such fortifica tiOns, of occupying,
fortifying colonizing Nicaragua, Costa
Rfca, the Mosquito coast, or any part of
Central America, or Of assuming or exer-
cising dominion over the same
This clause has raised doubt in his
mind, as he believed it had in the minds of
others, and he thought it should be cleared
up.
Replying to the first of these inquiries,
Senator Lodge said frankly that in his
opinion under the pending treaty the
United States. would be estopped from ex-
tending it's domain into Central American
territory, as the new negotiation did not alb
rogate that portion Of the old treaty.
Senator Foraker expressed the opposite
view, saying that unquestionably the United
States could extend her dominion into that
region If 1t so desired, just England had
done in taking possession of the Mosquito
country.
The Ohio senator replied affirmatively to
question from Senator Mason as to
whether the United States could acquire
and annex South American country as we
have annexed Hawaii with the complete as
sent of the country coming under our pro-
lection; but on this point Senator Lodge diff
fered from his colleague on the committee on
foreign relations, as he had on the matter
presented from another standpoint by Sen
a;or Beveridgc.
Mr.. Lodge said that under the new treaty
We as a nayion, of course, would be al
lowed to secure and hold property in con-
'nection with the canal, but not to extend
our territory in the region of the proposed
waterway.
No Authority to FOrtify.
In reply to other questions he said that
he did not believe that under the Hay
Pauncefote treaty, even as 1t was proposed
to amend It, there would be any AM thOrity