Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1900-12-27
THE CANAL TREATY.
WHY THE ANElDNtyTS WERE MADE
The senator for Massachusetts Explains
the Three Amendments anu Says Thy
VIII in No Way Interfere with
the Canals Ntairality.

Washington, Dec. %. - Senator
Lodge, who had charge of the Hay
Pauncefote treaty in the senate, yes
terday made the following statement:
The senate amendments are very i'm
portant, but they are also very simple,
although there seems to be some msun-
Outstanding in regard to them, owing to
| the fact that all the debates upon the
| treaty took place behind closed doors.
Now that the amendments and votes have
been made public by order Of the SEN
ate, 1t may not be amiss to explain them
| briefly.
Let me say first, that the amendments
were not dictated by hostility toward
| England, and still less were they In any
degree reflection upon the secretary of
state, whose patriotism, purity of pur-
pose, knowledge, accomplishments and
| high achievement In dealing with our for
| eign relations, especially in China are
fully and cordially recognized by men of
all parties and all shades of opinion In
the senate. The amendments were made
| by the senate solely because in its opin-
ion they were necessary for the interests
| of the United States, for the avoidance
of any question as to the control of the
canal, and consequently for the sake of
peaceful and harmonious relations with
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 Go to H.
and the other two were adopted without
division.
The first amendment is a simple decla-
ration that the Clayton-Buwer treaty
ceases to exist and is superseded by the
lIayPauncefote treaty The object OF
the latter was to remove the former as
an obstacle to the construction Of the
isthman 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 n reasonable and
proper wish and to fulfill it is the pur-
pose of the first amendment.
Under article 2 of the Hay Pauncefote
treaty as it stood we were clearly bound,
If engaged In war, to permit a hostile
fleet, If ii succeeded in getting inside the
three mile zone, to pass unmolested
through the canal. This may or may
not be a practical question, and it is of
no consequence whether it is or not.
1t was a solemn promise to permit hos
tile fleet to use the canal. That promise
We either intended to keep or else we
made it knowing that under the stress
of war we should break it. If we meant
to keep it, then it was a promise no ma
ton ought to make II we knew that we
should not keep ii in time Of war, then
1t was only honest and fair to relieve
ourselves of the obligation in the treaty
itself. This was the purpose of the sec
ond or Davis amendment, which entirely
disposes of any such promise and which
follows exactly In principle and almost
exactly In words, article 10 of the Suez
convention, which reserved similar rights
to Turkey, whose interest in the Sucz
canal is trivial compared to ours in that
proposed in Nicaragua,
The third amendment strikes out arti-
Gle 3, by which we engaged to invite other
nations to adhere to the treaty and there
by become parties to It, Had there been
no Clayton liulwer treaty we should have
negotiated with no one except Costa RIGA
and Nicaragua as to building the canal
With England, owing to the Clayton
Bulwer treaty, we We're obliged to treat.
but as we expect Europe to keep out Of
this hemisphere II seemed to the senate
unWise, however excellent and liberal
the intention, to invite European nations
to share in an American treaty and thus
give them the right to NEEDLE in Ameri-
can affairs at any point
Such are the purposes of the three
amendments, which in no way derogate
from the intention Of the United States
that this canal shall be a neutral high
way for the worlds commerce.