The age-herald., 1901-12-13
Senator Foraksr Says Provisions of New Treaty Meet Ob-
 jecIiORs to the Old
]. s, MAY FORTIFY CANAL
Sharp col,oquy Occurs Between MT. Bacon and Mir. Foraker, But Sena- toriaI Courtesy Prevails and
 Peace Is Restored.

Washington. December 12.-The Senate today agreed to meet at Il a. m. Mon dav and to take a vote before adjourn ment on the new Hay -Pauncefote treaty for the abrogation of the Clayton-bui"er treaty and opening the way Tor the con struction of canal across the lstnmus oi Panama by the United States ms agreement was reached after four hours of debate. There will be some more speeches
 The principal speakers today besides Senator Spooner were Senator Money and Senator Foraker. MT. Money while finding much in the treaty to crlticize' said thet as he found the fortunes of the proposed canal across the isthmus mex tricably entertwined with the treaty ne could not see his way clear to do any thing that would prevent or even delay ratification. He objected to the neutrality provision of the Clayton-Bulwer conVeh- ton and the provision for police control of the canal He argued that the enect of these provisions inevitably must De to limit and prescribe the power or the United States to control its own property in case of war.
 Foraker Favors Treaty.
 Senator Foraker maintained that the provisions of the new treaty meet every objection made to the original Hay Pauncefote treaty and cover every essen- tiaI thing that was included in the amendments made by the Senate to that document He regards 1t as of the ut most importance that the Clayton-Bul- wer treaty should be wiped out. Under this treaty and that our absolute and complete control of the canal could not be questioned by Great Britain or any other power.
 Senator Foraker was frequently inter rupted by Senator Bacon. In the course of one of the interruptions Mir. Bacon asked if 1t was not true that under the terms of the treaty the construction or fortifications by the United States would be an act of war.
 MT. Foraker replied in the negative, de- ciaring that not only would such an act not be an act of hostility but that to build Notifications in case of necessity was one of the inherent rights of the government.
 A Sharp ColIoquy.
 Mir Bacon responded that he for one would never bring himself to vote for she ratification of the treaty with the un- derstanding that his government was to violate it. Mir. Foraker retorted sharply to the effect that his friend from Georgia could not be more virtuous along the line of maintaining the country's honor in the matter of keeping its agreements with other nations than were other Senators. Mr. Bacon replied that he had not meant to assume a virtue that he did not possess nor to imply that other Senators were not as jealous of the countrys good name as he himself was. MT. Foraker then declared that he had not meant to charge Mir, Bacon with an unfair assump- ton. but simply to say that like all other Senators supporting the treaty, he felt he was giving his name to transaction which would be honoraby carried out as between nations.
 Senator Spooner also was frequently fn- terrupted by Senators on the Democratic side Senator Bacon asked about the right. to fortify the canal MT. Spooner said that 1t was a well known prin- riple of international law that all trea- ties, like all statutes, must be read to- gether, and he contended in this connec- ton with the Clayton-Bulwer treaty the original Hay-Pauncefote treaty, and the pending treaty, for the proper construc- lion of the agreement, should be consid- cred as one series.
 May Fortify Canal.
 The Clayton Bulwer agreement had provided that there should be no fortif- cations of the canal and the Hay -Paunce- fote treaty of the Fifty-sixth Congress had carried similar provision, but the new treaty struck out the entire fortif- cation provision, clearly showing that England, after contendng for half cent tury against Qualifications, had waived that provision, thus practically conced- ing our right to fortify the proposed canal.
 Questions were asked by Senator Till man and Senator Bailey concerning the right of the United States to blockade the canal. and in reply Senator Spooner in- sisted that the government of the United States could not be bound by any treaty agreement which would prevent this countrys defending it's own property in its own way in time of war. Senator Till man pressed the inquiry somewhat, and he and MT. Spooner engaged in some- what spirited oolloduy which. as usual with them, ended good naturedly.
 coastwise Trade Vessels.
 4 very important question was raised bg . number of Senators on the Demo- cFatic side as to the right of the United States to give & differential rate to ves- sells engaged in our coastwise trade.
 Senator Nelson insisted that under ex- isting 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. It was perfectly well understood, he said that the ships of foreign nation could not do coastwise business, and Great Britain has 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 ac- quire rights which would subject that territory to our coastwise laws and said foreign bottoms could not trade bstwea-