Daily Kennebec journal., 1901-12-13
s7th CUNGREss.
(Continued from page ID

all statutes. must be read together, and
he intended in this connection that the
Clayton Bulwer treaty, the orlgihai
Hay-Pauncefote treaty and the pend
ing treaty for the proper construction
If the agreement should be considered
as one series. The Clayton Bulwer
agreement had provided that there
should be no fortitication of the canal
and the -Pauncefote treaty of the
ssth Congress had carried similar
provision. but the new treaty struck
cut the whole fortitications provision.
clearly showing that England. after
contending for half a century against
fortjfcations, had waived that proVi-
sion. thus practically conceding our
right to fortify the proposed canal.
Questions were asked by Tillman AMI
Bailey concerning the right of the
United States to blockade the canal
and in reply Spooner insisted that the
government of the United States could
not be bound by any treaty arrange
ment which would prevent this c"un-
try's defending it's own country in its
way in time of war.
Tiliman pressed the inquiry some
what and he and Spooner engaged in
a somewhat spirited colloquy. which.
as usual with them. ended good
naturedly.
\ very important question WAS raised
by number of senators on The Demo-
cratic side as to the right Of the Unit
ed States to give IA differential rate to
vessels engaged in our coastwiSe trade.
This matter brought other senator's
from the Republican side of the cham
ber into the controversy. Perkins and
Nelson were among these who contri-
buted to this feature of the contro-
versy.
Nelson insisted that under existing
law the United States would have Il
perfect right to give to the CoastwiSr
trade of this country any benefit it
might sec proper in the use Of tho
canal. II was perfectly Well under
understood, he said, that the ships of
4 foreign nation could not DO = coast
wise business. and Great Britain had
made the treaty with the full knovl- |
edge OF this fact.
Perkins made the assertion that by
the acquisition or control of Il strip Of
territory through which the canal |
would pass the United States would ac- |
lIuire rights which would subject that |
territory to our coastWise laws and |
said foreign bottoms could rot trade
between ports of the United states ana |
any portion of the territory through |
which the canal was built.
This view was COmbatted 10 a Ccr- |
;ain extent by Tillman and Bacon. tne |
former estimating thar if that were |
true relative TO the United states, |
Great britain. on account Of her Cana |
dian possessions and Mexico. both eX- |
tending from ocean u ocean, also could |
contend for similar privileges. This he
thought. also would Do true of any |
South American country whose terri |
tory extends from ocean TO ocean.
Spooner was decidedly of a contrary |
opinion and insisted that these coun-
tries did not acquir" any rights OF 4
coastwisc trade character along III.
route OF the proposed canal. which ter
ritoIy was under the control OF or
which might be ccfcd 10 the United |
States. The mare fact that Canadian
or Mexican territory extends from |
ocean TO ocean would not give them
the right 10 make demands for til" gen
erosity or business foresight or Ina |
United States.
SpOoner also cpntCndcd that the
United States would have q right to
control the canal after its own mani,e:
during any wal to which this country
might be 4 party.
Mason interpreted that treaty agree !
ments never bind q nation to the eX-
tirction Of its military rights end 'iu
ties.
Spooner assented 10 this ard said
that no matter what might be the i,rc-
visions of the treaty. the nation coulI |
not be accused of dishonOr or immo-- |
ality ic its terms were broken in d. |
fence of its own existence.