The daily morning journal and courier., 1900-04-06
CANAL TREATY CONSIDERED
THESENATE DISCUSSES IT BEHIND
 CLOSED DOORS.

CLOSED DOORS.
 Mir. Davts Speaks for Foreign Relations
 Committee's Amendment-The United
 States should Have Right to Defend
 Camal-Mr. Morgan Pleads for Ncu-
 trality ps the Best Guarantee of Safety
 and Usefnlmrss.
 Washington, April 5.-On motion of cred the -Pauncefote treaty for the
 modification of the Clayton-BulWer
 treaty behind closed doors. About three hours were spent in discussing the amendments to the treaty made by the
 senate committee on foreign relations, providing that none of the conditions and stipuations in sections 1, ?, 3, and 5 of article shall apply to measures which the United States may find It necessary to take for securing by it's own forces, the defense of the United States and the maintenance of public order"
 Senator Davis opened the debate with a general statement in support of the treaty, but directed his remarks espe- | cially towards the explanation of the | committee amendment. He stated that in all other essential respects the pend- ing treaty was similar to the treaty of Constantinople entered into with regard to the Suez canal For some reason, 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 in- | terest of the sultan of Turkey and the khedive of Egypt. This omission was palpable error, Mir Davis said, and he did not believe that the people of the | United States would be satisfied With any arrangement which left the govern ment of this country to build a water l way between the oceans and did not give it the right in specific terms to de- | fend it.
 | Senator Morgan, the only member of the committee on foreign relations who did not concur in the amendment made the principal speech in opposition to it. He consumed the greater part of the eX- ecutive session, MT. Davis speech being comparatively brief. Before MT. Morgan began, however, few brief statements were made for and against the amend ment. Senator Platt of Connecticut and Senator Stewart of Nevada both came out against the amendment MT. Platt made the point that the amendment was unnecessary and therefore undesir- able
 Senator Lodge made brief plea for the amendment, saying that however great the present confidence was in the power of neutrality and mutual under standing among nations, we should take into consideration the possibilltylof fu- ture entanglement and lose no oppor- tunity to make provision for safeguard ing our interests in all exigencies that might arise.
 Senator Morgan's speech was a plea for neutrality as the best guarantee of the safety and usefulness of the canal. | He said it was to be highway for the commerce of the nations and that the | proposed amendment not only would fail to provide for It's protection, but might be the means of causing compl- l cations which never could arise if the amendment was not inserted. The con- | ditions, he contended. were entirely dis |
 
 Suez canal Turkey possessing territory | in the immediate vicinity of that canal and the United States having no such possessions within thousands of miles of the proposed Nicaraguan canal He therefore thought the restriction super fiuous and contended that 1t indicated | a disposition to grant to Great Britain l power over us that the country did not .1,,1 1 contended that if this amendment was inserted 1t would require not only for tifications and the maintenance of troops at both ends of the canal, but also the maintenance of battleships coaling stations and supply depots in that vicinity. The provision was calcu- lated in times of emergency to make the termini of the canal great battle grounds and to invite complications with other nations which would be avoided in case of absolute neutrality.
 He also contended against the neces- sity for the precautionary measure ar- guing that in case of war we would take possession of the canal without any previous agreement to that effect "If,' he said, "I should get into a fis- ticuff with another fellow and he should strike me- would certainly strike back without stopping to read any previous agreement that I might have with my to the contrary. In case of a war we would almost certainly as- sume that the other nation to the con- troversy had broken the agreement and act accordingly" Asked by Senator Mason if he thought 1t would be consistent on the part of Great Britain to fortify Jamaica and still prevent our fortifying the canal, MT. Morgan replied that the neutrality /, provision only extended to the three ,, mile limit and not to place so dis :, tant as Jamaica. Notifications of out wing possessions, he said were con- | stantly going on and the good faith of 10 nation could be attacked because of : them.