The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1901-12-12
BACON AND CULLOM
ONE OPPOSES CANAL TREATY, THE
OTHER UPHOLDS 1T.
HAS TOO MANY RESTRICTIONS
OBJECTIONS NOT ALL REMOVED,
SAYS GEORGIAN.


Length, ConteDding That in Its
Present Form the Conditions Laid
Down by the Davis Amendment
TO It's Predecessor Had Not Been
Complied With-Treaty Would Be
suspended in Case of a War, Said
senator CuIIom and Would Be Re-
vivcd at It's Close.
washington, Dec. 1.-Two speeches
on the Hay-Pauncefote treaty were
made in the executive session of the
Senate to-day-one by Senator Bacon
in opposition to the treaty, and the
other by Senator Cullom, the prospec-
tive chairman of the Committee en-
Foreign Relations, in support of it.
Mr.. Bacon replied to the speech made
Yesterday by Senator Lodge in pre-
senting the report of the Committee on
Foreign Relations to the Senate. He
summed up the objections in the state
1nent that he could not freely accept
any treaty which does not place the
isthmian canal entirely under Ameri-
can auspices and American control
This, he said, the pending treaty does
not do; nor does it do anything like
it. 1t did not by long odds accom-
plish what had been accomplished by
the Senate amendment to the Hay
Pauncefote treaty that had been un>
der consideration at the last session of
Congress. That amendment had, he
said, abrogated all the Objectionable
provisions of the treaty as negotiated,
and it did not matter what provisions
there were in the agreement, so long
as the United States were authorized,
as they were by the principal Davis
amendment, to secure the safety and
maintenance of the canal by their own
force. That amendment had given this
country a free hand to do what was
necessary for the protection and de-
fense OF the canal whereas the present
treaty carries all the restrictions which
were originally contained in the old
treaty, leaving out the notifications OF
the Davis amendment. Referring to
the treaty, he pointed out that 1t re-
produces the restrictions of the old
Suez canal treaty which had been in
corporated in the original convention.
Taken From the Former Treaty.
He charged that these restrictions
had been copied almost verbatim from
the old treaty, the only material
change being in the omission of the
words "in time of war as in time OF
peace" from Rule 1 of the Suez canal
agreement. This admission did not
however, in his opinion, change the
character. of the agreement, as there
was no limitation as to time or coun-
try, preventing the United States
from controlling the canal in case Of
hostility with any other Power. THE
only reply he said, (which the ad-
vocates of the treaty make to critl-
csms is that the canal would be un-
der the full control of the United
States in time of war, but this Is no
more true now than under the old
treaty and it is a strange thing that
all the provisions refer to the control
of the canal in war Notwithstanding
it is contended here that in that con-
tingency the removal of this phase
places the canal under our absolute
control"
He said the war restrictions of the
treaty were entirely inconsistent with
the claims of Senator Lodge that this
country should say who should use
the canal and who should not in case
of hostilities. He contended that the
only power given to the United States
which was not given to Great Bri-
tain was found in the last sentence
of regulation 2, providing that 1.-The
United States shall be at liberty to
maintain such military police along
the canal as may be necessary to pro-
tect 1t against lawlessness and dis
order" but this, he said, was not suf-
ficient to make the canal an Ameri-
can institution, and If the Davis
amendment had been necessary to rem
der the original treaty acceptable it
was equally necessary in this instance
IL I %t,A 1fv1rr fN-Ag fx
every whit as Objectionable as the
treaty of last session. He quoted the
fourth article of the pending treaty
as follows:
1T is agreed that no change of ter
ritorial sovereignty or of international
relations of the country or countries
traversed by the aforementioned ca
nal. shall affect the general principle
of naturalization or the obligation of
the high contracting parties under the
present treaty"
Bacon Makes Neat Point.
The effect Of this provision; Senator
Bacon said, was inevitably to surrender
control of the canal belt in case the
ownership of the soil embraced in 1t
should pass to the United States. He
pointed out that this restriction had
not been incorporated in the first
treaty, and said it was entirely out of
pace In the revised agreement. IN
deed, he thought there would be al
most as much objection to guarantee
ing neutrality on land owned by the
United States on the Isthmus of Pana-
ma as on land held by a canal cross
ing the peninsula of Florida.
In conclusion Mr.. Bacon announced
that while he had no intention of vot-
ing for the treaty, he would do moth
Ing 10 obstruct its ratification.
CuIIom Presented other side.
Senator Cullom congratulated the
Senate and the country upon the fact
that there are two things in connec-
ton with the new treaty upon which,
he said, practically all are agreed. One
OF these was the desirability of the
suppression of the Clayton Bulwer
treaty, and the other that of the neces-
sity for the construction of an isthmian
canal.
He contended that the new treaty
radically changes the conditions pre-
sented by the first Hay Pauncefote
treaty, clearly relieving 1t of the ne
cessity of such an amendment as that
made to the old treaty upon the sug-
sestion of Senator Davis. because the
treaty itself would permit the United
states under international law to own
manage and defend the canal in any
way that it may choose. In other