Evening star., 1901-12-12
DISCUSSING NEW TREATY
LINE OF ARGUMENT IN THE SENATE
YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
Mr.. Bacon Claims That the Canal is
Mr.. CullOm's RejOfnder.

The speeches that were made for and
| against the Hay-Pauncefote treaty in the
| executive session of the Senate yesterday
| afternoon contained considerable Of in
| terest
| Mr.. BacOn's Objection.
Mr.. Bacon, replying to the speech Of
Senator Lodge on the previous day, sum-
med up his objections in the statement
| that he could not freely accept any treaty
| which does not place the isthmian canal
entirely under American auspices and
| American control This, he said, the pend
| ing treaty does not do, nor does 1t do any
thing like it, 1t did not by long odds ac-
complish what had been accomplished by
| the Senate amendments to the Hay
Pauncefote treaty that had been under
| consideration at the last session of Con-
gress That amendment had, he said,
abrogated' all the Objectionable provisions
| of that treaty as negotiated, and it did not
matter what provisions there were in the
agreement SO long as the United States
were authorized, as they were, by the prin-
| cipal Davis amendment, to secure the
safety and maintenance of the canal by
| their own force. That amendment had
given this country free hand to do what
was necessary for the protection and de-
fense of the canal, whereas the present
were originally contained in the old treaty,
leaving out the notifications of the Davis
amendment
Control in Time of War.
| Referring to the treaty, he pointed out
| that it reproduces the restrictions Of the
| old Suez canal treaty, which had been in
corporated in the original convention. He
charged that these restrictions had been
copied almost verbatim from the old treaty,
| the only material change being in the omis-
sion of the words ''in time of war as in
time of 9ce'' from rnla the SneZ
canal agreement. This omission did not
however, in his opinion, change the char
acter Of the agreement as there was no
Limitation as to time or country, prevent
| ing the United States from controlling the
canal in case of hostility with any other
power.
"The only reply he said which the ad-
vocateS of the treaty make to criticisms is
that the canal would be under the full con-
troll of the United States in time of war.
but this is no more true now than under the
| old treaty, and it is a strange thing that
all the provisions refer to the control of
the canal in war, Notwithstanding it is
contended here that in that contingency the
removal of this phase places the canal un-
der our absolute control"
The Only Exclusive Power.
He said the war restrictions of the treaty
were entirely inconsistent with the claims
of Senator Lodge that this country should
say who should use the canal and who
should not in case Of hostilities. He con-
tended that the only power given to the
United States which was not given to
Great Britain was found in the last SEN
tence of regulation two, providing that the
United States shall be at liberty to main
tain such military police along the canal as
may be necessary to protect it against law
lessness and disorder, but this, he said,
was not sufficient to make the canal an
American institution, and II the Davis
amendment had been necessary to render
the original treaty acceptable 1t was equally
necessary in this instance. He considered
the pending treaty every whit as objection
able as the treaty Of last session. He
quoted the fourth article Of the pending
treaty, as follows:
1T is agreed that no change Of territorial
sovereignty or of international relations of
the country or countries traversed by the
before mentioned canal shall affect the gen.
eral principle or naturalization or the obli-
cation of the high contracting parties under
the present treaty" The effect Of this pro-
vision, he said, was inevitably to surrender
control of the canal belt in case the own
ership of the soil embraced In it should pass
to the United States. He pointed out that
this restriction had not been Incorporated
in the first treaty, and said it was entirely
out of place in the revised agreement. In
deed, he thought there would be almost as
much objection to guaranteeing neutrality
on land owned by the United States on the
Istbmus of Panama as on land held by
canal crossing the peninsula Of Florida.
In conclusion Mr.. Bacon announced IhdC
while he had no intention of voting for the
treaty, he would do nothing to obstruct its
ratification.
Treaty Suspended in Time of War.
Senator Cullom, following Senator Bacon,
congratulated the Senate and the country
upon the fact that there are two things in
connection with the new treaty upon
which, he said, practically all are agreed.
One Of these was the desirability Of the
supercession Of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty
and the other that of the necessity for the
construction of an isthmian canal.
He ccntended that the new treaty rad
ically changes the conditions presented by
the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty, clearly
relieving it of the necessity of such an
amendment as that made to the old treaty
upon the suggestion of Senator Davis, be-
cause the treaty itself would permit the
United States under international law to
own, manage and defend the canal in any
way that it may choose. In other words,
he added, in war with Great Britain
with any other power the treaty would be
suspended under the law which governs
nations, until the war should be concluded,
when it would be revived and again en-
forced He dWelt upon the fact, which, he
said, was the most important circumstance
to be considered, that the new treaty
percedes and abrogates the Clayton-Bulwer
convention Of 1850 and for this reason
would be of untold value to the country.
Principle of Naturalization.
He admitted that the new treaty retains
the general principle of naturalization, as
did the original Hay-Pauncefote treaty, but
he urged that 1t does not re-enact or keep
alive any of the provisions of the treaty of
1850 While it retains the doctrine Of neu-
tralization, the provision making that re-
tention applies, the senator contended, to
all nations alike, but to none of them for
any longer time than they observe the reg
ulations prescribed by the United States
When they should fail in this observance
we could close the canal under the terms of
the treaty. All nations would be treated
on terms of fairness and equality by allow
ing all to use the canal in time of peace
and shutting out all in time of war, in case
1t should be found desirable to do SO. In
short, Senator Cullom urged that there is
no provision in the pending convention
which would interfere with our right as a
nation to close up the waterway to anny
belligerent power.
He contended that the provision in regard
to the policing of the canal applies only to
its control in times of peace and not in time
of war; Then, the United States being the