The age-herald., 1900-03-10

the oceans, while the United States is left free to enter upon and conclude such nego- tiations.
 There is nothing, therefore, to the preju- dice to the United States of the convention of February 5, 1900.
 To be Neutral Ground
 ''No American statesman, speaking with official authority or responsibility has ever intimated that the United States would att tempt to control this canal for the eXclu- sive benefit of our government or people, They have all, with one accord. declared that the canal was to be neutral ground in time of war and always open on terms of impartial equity to the ships and commerce of the world.
 Special treaties for the neutrality, i'm partlality, freedom and innocent use of the two canals that are to be the eastern and western gateWays of commerce between the great oceans are not in keeping with the ma agnftude and universality of the blessings they must confer upon mankind. The sub ject rather belongs to the domain of inter- national law.
 "The leading powers of Europe recognized the importance of this subject in respect to the Suez canal, and ordered a public ln- ternational act for its naturalization that is an honor to the civilization of the age. It is the beneficient work of all Europe and not of Great Britain alone. Whatever canal is built in the isthmus of Darien will be, ultimately, made subject to the same law of freedom and neutrality as governs the Suez canal, as a part of the laws of na- tions, and no single power will be able to resist it's control.
 .sThe United States cannot take an atti- tude of opposition to the principals to the act of October, 1888, without discediting the official declarations of our government for bn iStlmlan canal and its equal use by all nations with out discrimination"
 The Blockade Stipulation
 Touching upon the strategic choice the report says:
 We stipulate against the blockade of the canal by any nation.
 "In conditions that may not be entirely re- mote. we would find this provision, in let ting our ships through the canal free from capture by our enemy, of great security to our coaStwise trade.
 With our naval basis at Manila, Hono- lulu, San Francisco and Sandiego, on one side. and at San Juan, Porto Rico; the Isle of Pine and Key West. with other for tified naval stations on the other side, it is extremely improbable that fleet would cross either of the great oceans and ap- proach the canal to find gate way to the coasts of the other ocean.
 'If we are unable to handle an enemy under such disadvantages to them, our power of resistance to such a Campaign would be unworthy of our country, if 1t would not be ludicrous."
 As to the prohibition of Notifications, the report says:
 '"To make the canal a battle-ground is necessarily to its destruction, and the erec- tion of fortresses for its protection will invite hostilities to its locality.
 ."The real danger 10 the canal from the absence of Notifications, is so slight and improbable that dts discussion appears to be unnecessary"
 Senator Morgan's Minority Report
 Senator Morgan latter in the day filed a minority report, opposing the committee amendment. After announcing his concur renee In the main report referring to the history of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. Sem ator Morgan proceeds to the consideration of the treaty as affected by the pending agreement. He says the extreme conten- ton of the government of the United States has been that the Clayton Bulwer treaty is yiolabfe at our option. Not having iex' ercdsed that option, the treaty is confess edly conclusive as to the parts of the agree ment that have been executed, and is op- eratiye as Ito the parts tnat remain in force. Referring to former bills passed by the senase for the construction of the canal by private companies Mr. Morgan says that Great Britain never intended any contention or conflict between the con sessions and the C,ayton-Bulwer treaty, all these objections being made by opponents of ehe b.ll in the senate. He invites atten- tion to the fact That the pending treaty is for the avowed purpose of removing any objection that may arise out of the former treaty to the construction of the canal.
 Without impairing the general points of neutraLzation established in article of that convention"
 That general principle" the senator says, lis all that is left of the Clayton Bulwer treaty, aM others remaining being removed by article of the pending treaty He argues that under this article Great