The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-12-11
Similar Arrangement VIII BE Made
with Costa Rica in Order to Sc
cure Canal Right of Way.
SENATOR MORGAN'S MEASURE
$50, ,OOO, 900 ASKED FOR CONSTRUC-
TION OF THE WATERWAY.
Control of the Canal to Be Vested in
Board of Eight Citizens and
the Secretary of War.

WASHINGTON, Dec. Ex-senator Lodge
called up the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. in
executive session to-day, and made brief
statement regarding it. He contended that
the new treaty does away with all the OBJ
jectionable features of the treaty of the
last Congress and he enumerated the par
ticulars in which the revised agreement
conforms to the action of the Senate In
the last Congress, when the old treaty was
before it. He analyzed the new treaty
from beginning to end, showing that in
specific terms it abrogates the Clayton
Bulwer treaty of 1850. which, he said, had
stood constantly in the way of the con-
struction of an isthman canal. The abro-
cation of this treaty. he contended, was a
most important achievement, and he did
not believe that the United States should
cure that concession.
Senator Lodge also called attention to
the omission in Paragraph 1 of Article of
the words, I'm the time of war, in time
of peace" He said that in the old treaty
the paragraph read: THAT canal shall be
free and open, in time of war as in time
of peace to the vessels of commerce and
of war of all nations on terms of entire
of this phrase had the effect practically of
leaving the United States to do with the
canal in time of war according to its own
good pleasure.
He also referred to the fact that Rule Z
in the treaty of the powers regulating the
control of the Suez canal. which had been
embodied in the original Hay-Pauncefote
treaty, had been omitted in the revised
draft. He quoted this rule, which provided
that mo fortifcations shall be erected COM
manding the canal or the waters adjacent"
ETC. This, he said, was a material conces-
sion to the United States. and was quite
sufficient to meet the objections made
against that agreement that the United
States would have no power to protect its
property. 1t practically left the United
States free to fortify the canal in case it
should be considered desirable to do so, and
was in line with the omission of the restric-
tion keeping the canal open in time of war.
The fact that the invitation contained in
the old treaty TO the various powers to give
their adherence to the agreement had been
eliminated from the new convention, he
said was another compliance with the ac-
ton of the Senate on the original treaty.
These concessions, Mr.. Lodge urged, were
ample, and he contended that they were of
such nature as to render the new treaty
acceptable to all American citizens who
wanted to see canal constructed. Prac-
tically, he said, Great Britain had agreed to
turn the entire management of the canal
over to the United States, not only in time
of peace, but In time of war, and no one
could doubt that In case of hostilities the
United States would be at liberty to con-
strue the omission of the clause in Rule /
as having this effect
Senator Culberson asked Mr. Lodge If II
was not true that Article VIII of the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty, establishing the general
principle of naturalization. is not retained
in the new agreement, but Mr.. Lodge re-
piled that, while there was a declaration to
the effect that the general principle of neu-
tralization established by the article is still
! to be kept alive, the whole tenor Of the new
treaty was to neutralize and cancel the old
agreement. He did not consider the article
| would be of effect any longer.
The treaty will probably be called UP to-
|