The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-12-13
Leads North Carolina Daes i'm Circulation

were not as jealous of the country's good
name as he himself was. Mr.. Foraker
then declared that ne had nor meant TO
charge Mr.. Bacon with an unfair assump-
tion but simply to ay that like all ether
Senators supporting the treaty he felt
he was giving his name to a transaction
which would be honorably carried out as
between nations.
Senator Spooner who followed also was
frequently interrupted by Senator's on the
Deocratic side. One of the first inter-
ruptions came from Senator Bacon and
pertained to the right to fortity the canal.
Replying to this inquiry, MIR. Spooner
said that it was a well knwn principle of
international law that all treaties, like
all statutes, ust be head together and
he contended in this connection that The
Clayton Bulwer treaty, the original Hay
Pauncefote treaty and the pending treaty
for the proper construction of the agree
ment as should be considered as one
series. The Clayton BulWer agreement
had provided that there should he no
fortificati tions of the canal and the Hay
Pauncefote treaty of the Fifty sixth Con-
gress had carried a siilar provision, but
the new treaty struck out the enti,e for
England, after conteniing for half
century against Notifications, had waived
that provision, thus practically conced;ng
our right to fortify the proposed canal.
Questions were asked by Senator's 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
bo hu
ment which would prevent this country's
defending it's own property in its own
way in time of war. Senator Tillman
pressed the inquiry somewhat, and he and
Mr.. Spooner engaged in somewhat
spirited colloquy. which as usual with
them, ended good naturedly.
A very important question was raised by
a number of Senators nthe Democratic
side as to the right of the United States
to give a dfferential rate to vessels en-
gagged in our coastwise trade. This mat
ter brought other Senators from the Re-
publican side of the Chamber into the
controversy, Senators Perkins and Mel
son being among them. Senator Nelson
insisted that under existing law the
United States would have a perfect right
to give to the coastwise trade of this
country any benefit it might see proper
in the use of the canal. 1t was perfect
ly we'll understood, he said. that the
ships of a foreign nation could not do
coaStwise business and Great Britain
had made the treaty with the full knoWl-
edge of this fact. Senator Perkins made
the assertion that by the acquisition CT
control of a 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 between ports of the United States
and any portion of the territory through
which the canal was built. This view
was combatted to a certain extent by
Senators Tillman and Bacon, the former
intimating the opinion. if that were true
relative to the United States, Great
Britain, on account of her Canadian pos
sessions, and Mexico, both extending
from ocean to ocean, also could contend
for similar privileges. This, he thought
also would be true of any South Amer-
can country whose territory extends
from ocean to ocean Senator Spoonar
was decidedly of a contrary opinion ard
insisted that these countries did not ac-
quire any rights of a coastwise trade
canal, which territory was under the con-
troll of or which might be ceded to the
United States.