The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-12-13


 : 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. ! MT. Foraker's speech dealt largely with the legal construction and the ! general effect of the treaty. He said that after a careful study of it's pro- 6 visions, he was firmly convinced that it ! could be honestly supported by every \ patriotic citizen.
 Senator Foraker was frequently inter- ! Tnpted by Senator Bacon. In the course of one of these interruptions, Mr. Ba- con asked if it was not true that under < the terms of the treaty the sconstruc- < ton of Qualifications by the United < States would be an act of war. Mir. Foraker replied in the negative, < declaring that not only such an act declaring that not only would such an
 act not be an act of hostility, but that X to build Qualifications in case of neces- Etty was one of the inherent rights of z the government.
 10 this MT. Bacon responded that he S for one would never bring himself to vote for the ratification of the treaty < with the understanding that his gov $ernment was to violate it.
 MT. Foraker retorted sharply to the aeHect that his friend from Georgia Bcould be no more virtuous along the 4 line of maintaining the country's honor
 tn the matter of keeping it's agreements ' with other nations than were other
 nerators.
 .s MT. Bacon replied that he had not
 meant to assume virtue that he did { not possess, nor to imply that others were not as jealous of the country's < rood name as he himself was. sHAA HA MT. Foraker then declared that he < had not meant to charge MT Bacon
 With an unfair assumption, but simply
 to say that like all other senators sup
 rorting the treaty he felt he was giv- tng his name to transaction which
 would be honorably carried out as be- tween nations.
 Senator Spooner who followed also was frequently interrupted by senators on the democratic side. One of the first s4nterruptions came from Senator Bacon a4nd pertained to the right to fortify
 
 6Hponer said that it was a well known principIe of international law that all treaties, like all statutes, must be read Together, and he contended in this con S11ectiOn that the Clayton Bluwer 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 pro- Vided that there should be no fortifica- Hons of the canal, and the Hay Pauncefote treaty of the Fiftysixth ]cpngress had carried a similar pro- xtsion, but the new treaty struck out the entire Notifications provision, clearly showing that England, after Icontfnding for half a century against 1prttf1cations, had waived that pro xiBion, thus practically conceding our light to fortify the proposed canal
 Questions were asked by Senators Tillman and Bailey concerning the night Of the United States to blockade the Eanal and in reply Senator Spoon Ter Insisted that the government of the United States could not be bound by my treaty agreement which would prevent this country's defending its own property in its own way In time of War Senator Tillman pressed the in- 4uiry Somewhat and he and MT. Spoon- IF engaged in a somewhat spirited col ICquy which as usual with them, ended l food naturedly
 x A very important question was raised | by a number of senators on the demo- | CxHtic side as to the right of the United | st&tes to give a differential rate to | vessels engaged in our coastwise trade, l This matter brought other senators | from the republican side of the cham Der into the controversy. Senators l Perkins and Nelson were among those | who contributed to this feature of teh | cohtroversy. Senator Nelson insisted | that under existing law the United | States would have perfect right to Five to the coastwise trade of this country any benefit it might see proper | ln the use of the canal. It was perfect ly well understood, he said, that the ghipS of foreign nation could not do | ! coastwise business, and Great Britain 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 sanal would pass, the United States would acquire rights which would sub |ect that territory to our coastwise avs, and said foreign bottoms could not trade between ports of the United States and any portion of the territory through which the canal was built. This flew was combatted to a certain ex- ent by Senators Tillman and Bacon, ne former intimating that if that were rue relative to the United States. Great Britain on account of her Canadian ,0ssessions and Mexico, both extending rom ocean to ocean, also could contend or similar privileges. This, he thought, lleO would be true of any South Amer can country whose territory extends rom ocean to ocean.
 Senator Spooner was decidedly of ontrary opinion and insisted that these countries did not acquire any rights of :. coastwise trade character along the | oute of the proposed canal, which ter tory was under the control of or which I night be ceded to the United States. The mere fact that Canadian or MeXi- an territory extends from ocean to cean would not give them the right to