The age-herald., 1900-12-22
United States Bears the Burden
 of Building Canal
THEREFORE WE SHOULD CONTROL IT
According to the Original Treaty Amer ica Was Under Promise to Permit Hostile Fleets to Pass Through
 the Canal Unmolested.


 Lodge, who had charge of the Hay-Paunee- fote treaty in the Senate today made the following statements
 ''The senate amendments are very i'm portant, but they are also very simple, al though there seems to be some misunder- standing in regard to them owing to the fact that all the debates on the treaty took. place behind closed doors. Now that the amendments and votes have been made public by order of the committee, it may not be amiss to explain them briefly.
 ..Let me say first that the amendments were not dictated by hostility toward Eng land, and still less were they in any de- gree reflection upon the Secretary ot State, whose patriotism, purity of purpose, knowledge, accomplishments and high achievements in dealing with our foreign relations, especially in China, are fully and cordially recognized by men of all par ties and all shades of opinion in the Sen ate The amendments were made by the Senate solely because in it's opinion, they were necessary for the interests Of the United States, for the avoidance of any question of the control of the canal, and consequently for the sake of peaceful and harmonious relations th the rest of the world on that subject in the future. The vote by which they were adopted shows this The second or Davis amendment passed by a vote of 65 to IT and the other two were adopted without division.
 The First Amendment.
 "The first amendment is a simple decla- ration that the Clayton Bulwer treaty ceases to exist and is superseded by the HayPauncefote treaty. The object of the latter was to remove the former as an ob- stacle to the construction of the isthmlan canal. Some good judges thought that the Hay-Pauncefote treaty did this completely as it stood Others believed that certain portions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty still remained in force. To allow this doubt to continue would have been a grave mistake The American people desired to be rid of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty finally and be- yond question. This Is a reasonable and proper wish, and to fulfill it is the purpose of the first amendment.
 Under article ii. of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, as it stood, we were clearly bound, if engaged in war, to permit a hostile fleet, if it succeeded in getting inside the three mile zone to pass unmoested through the canal. This may or may not be a practical question, and it is of no consequence whether it is or not. It was a solemn promise to permit hostile fleets to use the canal. That promise we either intended to keep or else we made it knowing that un- der the stress of war we should break it. If we meant to keep it then it was prom ise no nation ought to make. If we knew that we did not keep it in time of war then it was only honest and fair to relieve ourselves of our obligation in the treaty itself. This was the purpose of the second or Davis amendment which entirely dis poses of any such promise, and which fol- lows exactly in principle and almost ex- actly in words, article \. of the Suez con vention which reserved similar rights to Turkey whose interest in the Suez canal is trivial compared to ours in that pro- posed in Nicaragua
 Other Nations Not Invited.
 ''The third amendment strikes out arti- cle iii by which we engaged to invite other nations to adhere to the treaty and thereby become parties to 1t. Had there been nc Clayton- Bulwer treaty we should have ne- gotiated with none except Costa Rica and Nicaragua as to building the canal. With England, owing to the Clayton-BulweT treaty, we were obliged to treat, but as we expect Europe to keep out of this hem isphere it seemed to the Senate unwise, however excellent and liberal the inten- tion, to invite European nations to share in American treaty and thus give them the right to meddle in American affairs at any point.
 Such are the purpose of the three amendemnts which in way derogate from the intention of the United States that the canal shall be neutral highway for the worlds commerce"
 Do you think England will accept or re- ject these Senate amendments?" the Sem ator was asked.
 That is a question I have been asked many times and upon which I don't think 1t would be right or proper for me to ex- press an opinion," was the reply.
 "But I.think I can with propriety say a word as to our views of the amendments. It-is well recognized in interna tional law that when the conditions under which a treaty has been made have been radically changed and new conditions and new de- mands have arisen, this fact is ample ground for seeking'a an abrQgation or modi- fication of the original inArument.
 America Wants Control.
 'oThe American people desire to build and mean to build and control the isthman canal They recognize that the Clayton-Bul- wer treaty, made fifty years ago, under conditions no longer existent stands in the way, They have no desire to clear it from their path in a violent fashion by formally denouncing it or by passing laws and talk ing action in contravention of its provis- los. They wish to remove it by amicable arrangements in a suitable and becoming manner. The Hay-Pauncefote treaty was framed for this object. The Senate Is part of the treaty-making power and treaties sent to it for ratification are not strictly treaties, but projects for treaties. They are still inchoate. In the exircise of its un- doubted right without the slightest refec-