New-York tribune., 1900-04-06
CANAL TREATY DISCUSSED
THE SENATE BEGINS TO CONSIDER THE
HAY-PAUNCEFOTE CONVENTION.

Washington. April 5.-On motion of Senator
Davis the Senate to-day considered the Hay
Pauncefote Treaty behind closed doors. About
three hours were spent in discussing the amend
ment made by the Committee on Foreign Rea-
tions providing that none of the conditions
and stipuiations in Sections l. 2, g. and ) Of
Article ii shall apply to measures which the
United states may find 1t necessary to take for
securing by Its own forces the defence OF the
United States and the maintenance of public
order"
Senator Davis opened the debate with a state
nlent In support of the treaty, but directed his
remarks especially toward explaining the COM
mittee amendment. He said that in all other es-
sential respects the pending treaty was similar
to the Treaty of Constantinople. entered into in
connection with the Suez Canal. For some rea-
son, however, the provision permitting the
United States to defend its property was omit
ted. In the Suez Canal Treaty such provision
was inserted in the interest of the Sultan of
Turkey and the Khedive of Egypt This omis-
sion was palpabe error Mr.. Davis said and
he did not believe that the people of the United
States would be satisfied with any arrangement
which left the Government OF this country to
build waterway between the oceans and did
not give it the right in specific terms to de-
fend II.
Senator Morgan. the only member OF the Com
mittee on Foreign Relations who did not concur
In the amendment. made the principal speech in
opposition to 1t. He consumed the greater part
OF the executive session. Mr. Davis's speech be-
ing comparatively brief Before Mr. Morgan be-
gan. however, a few brief statements were made
for and against the amendment Senator Platt,
OF Connecticut. and Senator Stewart. of Nevada,
opposed the amendment. Mr.. Platt made the
point that the amendment was unnecessary and
therefore undesirable.
Senator Lodge made brief plea for the
amendment saying that, however great the
present confidence was in the power of neutral
ity and mutual understanding among nations.
the United States should take into consideration
the possibility of future entanglements and lose
TO opportunity to make provision for safeguard
ing its interests in all eXgencies that might
arise
MR.. MORGAN'S PLEA FOR NEUTRALITY.
Senator Morgan's speech a plea for
trality the. best guarantee of the safety and
usefulness of the canal. He said 1t to be
highway for the commerce of the nations. and
that the proposed 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 contended, were entirely dis
similar from those connected with the Suez
Canal, Turkey possessing territory in the i'm
mediate neighborhood of that canal. and the
United States having no such possessions within
thousands Of miles of the proposed Nicaragua
Canal. He therefore thought the restriction
superfuous, and contended that 1t indicated
disposition 10 grant to Great Britain powers
over the United States which that country did
not attempt to assert. Furthermore, he
tended that If this amendment inserted it
would require not only fortifcatons and the
maintenance of troops probably at both ends OF
the canal, but also the maintenance Of battle
ships, coaling stations and supply depots near
the canal. The provision calculated in
times of emergency to make the termini Of the
canal great battle grounds, and to invite COM
plications with other nations which would be
avoided in of the maintenance of absolute
neutrality.
He also contended against the necessity for
precautionary measures. arguing that in OF
war the United States would take possession OF
the canal without any previous agreement to
that effect. "If,' he said, II should get into a
fisticuf with another fellow and he should strike
me, would certainly strike back without stop
might have with my antagonist to the contrary.
In case of a war we would almost certainly as
sumo that the other nation to the controversy
had broken the agreement. and act accordingly"
Asked by Senator Mason IL he thought IL
would be consistent the part OF Great Britain
TO fortify Jamaica and still prevent the United
States fortifying the mouth of the canal, Mr..
Morgan replied that the neutrality provision
only extended to the three mile limit and not to
a place SO distant Jamaica. Fertilization of
outlying possessions he said. was constantly go
ing and the good faith Of no nation could be
attacked because of II.
Senator Wolcott asked several questions indt-
eating his opposition to the amendment, while
Senator Mason ia the same way indicated his
opposition to the treaty without the amendment
Neither of them, however, made any affirmative
statement.
At the close of Senator Morgan's speech the
Senate returned to the consideration of leetsla-
tive business. no one being prepared to speak on
the treaty