Evening star., 1901-12-13
TO VOTE ON CANAL TREATY
SENATE AGREES TO A DIVISION
NEXT MONDAY:
Discussion of the Right to FOrtify
and Blockade the Isthmian
Waterway. ~ q,


Pauncefote treaty yesterday afternoon the
Senate agreed to vote .onthe treaty, before
adjournment next Monday.
Senator Spooner, who was one or the
principal speakers of the day, had just con-
cluded, when Senator Lodge made an Ell
fort to secure vote. 1t developed that
there were other Senator's who desired to
be heard, the result being that the date for
the vote was postponed until Monday. The
agreement provided for. an, adjournment OF
the Senate from yesterday until Monday
and for a meeting at IL o'clock of that day.
one hour in advance~of, the usual time
The understanding is that as soon as prac-
ticable after the Senate convenes Senator
Lodge shall move an executive session, and
that the treaty shall have the entire atten-
tion of the Senate until a final vote is
reached before the adjournment for that
day.
The principal speakers yesterday after
noon, besides Senator Spooner. were Sen
ator Money and Senator Foraker. Mr..
Money. while finding much in the treaty
to criticise, said that as he found the for
tunes of the proposed canal across the
isthmus ineXtricably intertwined with the
treaty he could not see his way clear to do
anything that would prevent or even delay
ratification The particular features of the
new treaty with which he found fault were
those retaining the neutrality provision of
the Clayton-Bulwer convention and Specl-
flying police control of the canal when
built. He argued that the effect of these
provisions inevitably must be to limit and
prescribe the power of the United States
to control it's own property in case of war
Senator Foraker maintained that provi-
sions of the new treaty meet every objection
made to the original Hay-Pauncefote
treaty and cover every essential thing that
was included in the amendments made by
the Senate to that document. He regarded
1t as of the utmost Importance that the
C1ayton-Bulwer treaty should be wiped out
This result was effected by the convention
under consideration. He asserted that all
rights of the United States We're amply
protected under this treaty, and that our
absolute and complete control of the canal
could not be questioned by Great Britain
or any other power.
Mr. ForakerS speech dealt largely with
the legal construction and the general ef-
feet of the treaty. He said that after
careful study of its provisions he was
firmly convinced that it could be honestly
supported by every patriotic citizen.
The Right to Fortify.
Senator Foraker was frequently inter-
rupted by Senator Bacon. In the course of
if it was not true that under the terms of
the treaty the construction of fortfications
by the United States would be an act of
war
MIR. Foraker replied in the negative, de-
claring that not only would such an act
not be an act of hostility, but that to
build fortifications in case of necessity was
one of the inherent rights of the govern
ment.
To this Mr.. Bacon responded that he for
one could never bring himself to vote for
the ratification of the treaty with the un-
derstanding that his government was to
violate It,
Mr.. Foraker retorted sharply to the eff
feet that his friend from Georgia could be
no more virtuous along the line Of MAIN
tanning the country's honor in the matter
of Keeping its agreements with other ma
tions than were other senators.
Mr. Bacon replied that he had not meant
to assume virtue, that he did not possess
nor to imply that other senators were not
as jealous of the country's good name as
he himself was.
Mr.. Foraker then declared that he had
not meant to charge Mr.. Bacon with an
unfair assumption. but simply to say that,
like all other senators supporting the treaty
he felt he was giving his name to a trans
action which should be honorably carried
out as between nations -. 1890.
Right by Implication.
Senator Spooner, who followed also was
frequently interrupted by senators on the
democratic side.
One of the first Interruptions came from
Senator Bacon and pertained to the right
to forty the canal. Replying to this in
quiry, Mr.. Spooner said that it was a we'll
known principle of international law that
all treaties. like all statutes, must be read
together, and he contended in this connec-
ton that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, the
original Hay-Pauncefote treaty and the
pending treaty for the proper construction
of the agreement should be considered as
one series. The Clayton-Bulwer agreement
had provided that there should be no for
tlhcat1ons of the canal, and the Hay
Pauncefote treaty of the Fifty-sixth Con-
gresS had carried a similar provision, but
the new treaty struck out the entire forti-
hcatlons provision, clearly showing that
England, after contending for half a CEN
tury against Notifications, had waived that
provision, thus practically conceding our
right to fortify the proposed canal
questions We're asked by Sena ators Till
man and Bailey concerning the right of
the United States to blockade the canal
and in reply Senator Spooner insisted that
the government of the United States could
not be bound ty any treaty agreement
which which would prevent this country's
defending its own property in it's own way
in time of war.
Senator Tillman pressed the ino,,irv
somewhat, and he and Mr. Spooner en-
gagged in a somewhat spirited colloouv
winch, as usual with them, ended good
naturedly.
DifYerentiaI Rates.
number of senators on the democratic side
as to the right of the United States to give
differential rate to vessels engaged in our
coastwise trade. ..-..
This matter brought other senators from
the republican side of the chamber into the
controversy, Senators Perkins and Nelson
being among those who contributed to this
feature of the controversy. Senator Nelson
insisted that under existing law the United
States would have perfect right to give
to the coastwise trade of this country any
benefit 1t might see proper in the use of the
canal. 1t was perfectly well understood, he
said, that the ships of a foreign nation could
not do a coastwise business, and Great Brit
ain had made the treaty with the full
knowledge of this fact. Senator Perkins
made the assertion that by the ACQUISITION
or control of strip OF territory through
which the canal would pass the United
states would acquire rights which would
subject that territory to our coastwise laws.
and said foreign bottoms could not trade be-
tween ports of the United States and any
portion of the territory through which the
canal was built. .t-,..,-s - ..
This view was combated to certain ex-
tent by Senators Tillman and Bacon the
former intimating the onpior +bat ,ro.o