The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-04-06
An AMENDMENT is NECESSARY
UNITED STATES SHOULD STIPU.
LAPE FOR PROTECTION IN
EVENT OF WAR
MR.. MORGAN OPPOSES IT
Maintains That n Declaration of
HOstiIities Would AbrOgate the
Agreement-Featur of
Treaty Discussed.


Senator Davis, the senate today consid-
cred the Hay-Pauncefote treaty for the
modification of the Clayton Bulwer treaty
About three hours were spent In consider
ing the amendment to the treaty, offe ell
by the committee on foreign relations,
providing that none of the stipulations
and regulations in sections !. 2, 3 and 1.
Of article 2 shall apply to measures which,
the United States may find necessary for
securing by Its own forces the defense of
United States interests, or the mainte-
nance of public order.
Senator Davis opened the general d bate
with a statement in support of the treaty,
hut directed his remarks especially to the
committee amendment. He stated that in
all other essential respects the pending
treaty was similar to the treaty of Con-
stantinople, entered into in connection
with the Suez canal. For some reason,
however, the permission permitting the
United States to defend its property was
| omitted. In the Suez canal treaty such
q provision was inserted in the interest
of the sultan Of Turkey and .he khediVe
of Egypt. This omission was a palpable
error, Mr.. Davis said, and he did not be-
| lieve the people of the United States
would be satisfied with any arrangement
which left the government of this coun-
try to build a waterway between the
oceans and did not give 1t the right in
| specific terms to defend 1t.
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.
7 xI.o
ecutive session, Mr. Davis spesch being
comparatively brief. Before Mr.. Morgan
began, however, a few brief statements
were made for and against the amend
ment. Senator Platt, of Connecticut, and
! Senator Stewart, of Nevada, both carae
/ ont against the amendment. Mr.. P.att
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 neutrality and mutual understanding
| among nations we should take into con-
| sideration the possibility Of future entan-
| clements, and lose no opportunity to
make provision for safeguarding our In
terests in all exigenci2s that might arise.
PLEA FOR NEUTRALITY.
| Senator Morgans speech was plea
!
| the safety and usefulness of the canal.
| He said 1t was to be a 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 amend
ment was not inserted. The conditions
| he contended were totally diss.milar to
! those of the Suez canal, Turkey posses
sing property in the immediate vicinity
| of that canal, and the United States
! having no possessions within 1000 miles
of the proposed Nicaraguan canal. He
therefore thought the restriction super
fluous, and contended that it indicated
disposition to grant to Great Britain
powers over us which that country did
not attempt to assert. Furthermore, he
contended, If this amendment was
! inserted it would require not only fortif-
cations and the maintenance of troops at
probably both ends of the canal, but
also the maintenance of battleships, coal
ing stations and supply depots in that
vicinity. The provision was calculated
| in times of emergency to make the ter
mini of the canal great battle grounds
! and to invite complications with other
nations which would be avoided in case
! of the maintenance of absolute neutral
ity. He also contended against the
! adoption Of the amendment as a precau-
tionarY measure, arguing that in case
of war we would take possession of the
canal without any previous agreement
to that effect.
IT, he said "I should get into 1sti-
cuff with another fellow, and he should
strike me- I should certainly strike back
without stopping to regard any previous
agreement I might have with my antag-
| onist to the contrary In case of war
we must certainly assume that that ac-
tion had broken the treaty, and act ac-
cordingly."
Asked by Senator Mason if it would be
consistent with Great Britain to fortify
Jamaica and still be inconsistent with
us to fortify the canal, Mr.. Morgan re-
! piled that neutrality only extended to
the three miles limit and did not operate
so far distant as Jamaica. Fortifying
of outlying posts he said, was constant
ly going on, and the good faith of no
nation could be attacked because of
! them.
During the discussion Senator Wolcott
asked several questions indicating his
opposition to the amendment, while Sen
ator Mason by the same reason indi-
| Gated his opposition to the treaty with
out the amendment, though neither made
! definite statements
EAt the conclusion of Senator Morgan's
speech the senate returned to executive
business, no one else being prepared to
| speak on tie treaty.