The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-12-12
BACON ATTACKS, WHILE
 CULLOM DEPENDS TREATY Debate in Executive Session of the Senate on the New Hay-PauncefOte COmpaCt--Dlffer-
 ent Views of the Agreement.

inc canal belt in case the ownership of the soil embraced in it should pass to the United States. He pointed out that this restriction had not been incorporated in the first treaty and said it was en- tirely out of place in the revised agree ment. Indeed, he thought there would be almost as much objection to guaran- teeing neutrality on land owned by the United States, on the Isthmus of Panama. as on land held by a canal crossing the Peninsula of Florida.
 Mir. Bacon announced that while he had no intention for voting for the treaty, ne would do nothing to obstruct its ratihca- ton.
 Senator Cullom congratulated the Sen- ate and the country on the fact that there are two things in connection with the new treaty which he said practically all agreed, the desirability of the superces- sion of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and the necessity for the construction or an isthmian canal.
 He contended that the new treaty radi- cally changes the conditions presented by the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty. clearly relieving 1t of the necessity or the Davis amendment because the treaty would permit the United States under international law to own, manage and defend the canal in any way that it may choose In other words, in war with Great Britain or with any other power the treaty would be suspended, under the law which governs nations, until the war should be ended. when it would be revived and again enforced. He dweit upon the fact, which. he said, was the most important circumstance to be con sidered, that the new treaty supersedes and abrogates the Clayton-Bulwer con vention of 1850 and for this reason would be of untold value to the country.
 He admitted that the new treaty retains the general principle of naturalization but urged that it does not re-enact or keep alive any of the provisions or the treaty of 1850. Naturalization applied to all nations alike. but to none of them for Nany longer time than they observe the regulations prescribed by the United States. When they should fail in this observance, we could close the canai under the terms of the treaty. In short, there was no provision in the pending convention which would interfere with our right as a nation to close up the water way to any belligerent power.
 He contended that the provision In re- gard to the policing of the canal applies only to it's control in times of peace. Then, the United States being the owner of the property, under the term of the law. 1t could control it either with the police or a military power as 1t misht choose. Senator Cullom held that the provision regarding the change or sovereignty would make no real dlffer- ence in the conditions, as the same rule would apply if the sovereignty Of the county traversed by the canal should come to the United States.
 In this connection he quoted from President Roosevelt's message, saying that ba TTOitad States Ia not seeking to eX- tend it's borders. and adding that the chances were ten to one that this coun- try would not seek to secure new terri tory in that direction. As a matter of fact he said, the people do not want more territory than we now have, but are content to leave the boundaries as they at present exist