The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1901-12-13

washington, Lee. 1Z.-1ne oeHate
agreed today to take a vote before
adjourning next Monday, on the new
Hay -Pauncefote. treaty for the abroga-
ton of the Clayton-Bdlwer treaty
and the opening of the way for the
construction of a canal across the
IsthmEs of Panama by the United
States. This agreement was reached
after four hours of debate sufficiently
interesting to insure the constant at
tention of most of the senators.
Senator Spooner, who was one Of the
chief speakers of the day, had just
concluded when Senator Lodge made
an effort to secure a vote. 1t devel-
oped there were other senators who
desired to be heard the result being
that the date for the vote was post
poned until Monday.
The agreement provides for an ad-
tournament Of the Senate from today
until Monday and for meeting at IL
o'clock of that day, one hour in ad-
vance of the usual time. The under
standing is that as soon after the
Senate convenes as itsis practicable,
Senator Lodge will move an executive
session and that the treaty will have
the entire attention of the Senate un-
til after a final vote is had on that
day The speakers today besides Sen
ator Spooner were Senators Money
and Foraker.
Mr. Money, while finding much In
the treaty to criticise, said that as ne
found the fortunes of the proposed
canal across the isthmus inextricably
intertwined with the treaty, he could
not see his way clear to doing any
thing that would prevent or even delay
ratification. The particular features
of the new treaty with which he
found fault were those retaining the
neutrality provision of the Clayton
Bulwer convention, and specifying
police control of the canal when built
He argued that the effect of these
provisions inevitably must be to limit
and prescribe the power of the United
States to control it's own property in
case of war.
Senator Foraker maintained that
the provisions of the new treaty meet
every objection made to the original
Hay Pauncefote treaty and cover
every essential thing that was in
cluded in the amendments made by the
Senate to that document. He regard
ed it as of the utmost importance that
the Clayton Bulwer treaty should be
wiped out This result was effected by
the convention under consideration.
He asserted that all rights Of the
United States were amply protected
under this treaty and that our alb
solute and complete control of the
canal could not be questioned by Great
Britain or any other power.
Mr.. Foraker's speech dealt largely
with the legal construction and the
general effect of the treaty. He said
that after a careful study of its pro-
visions. he was firmly convinced that II
could be honestly supported by every
patriotic citizen.
Senator Foraker was frequently in
terrupted by Senator Bacon. In the
course of one of these Interruptions
Mr.. Bacon asked if 1t was not true
that under the terms of the treaty the
constructions Of Notifications by the
United States would be an act of war
Mr.. Foraker replied in the negative,
and said that to build Notifications in
time of war was one Of the inherent
rights of the government. Mr.. Bacon
said he could not for one moment
bring himself to ratify the treaty II
his government were to violate 1t.
Mr. Foraker said his friend from
Georgia could be no more virtuous
along the line of maintaining the
country's honor in the matter of keep
ing 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 not to imply that others
were not as jealous of the country S
good name as he himself was.
Mr.. Foraker then declared that he
had not meant TO charge Mr. Bacon
with an unfair assumption, but simply
to say that like all other senators sup
porting the treaty, he felt he was Civ
ing his name to a transaction Which
would he honorably carried out as be-
tween nations.
Senator Spooner. who followed, al
so was frequently interrupted by SEN
ators on the Democratic side. One Of
the first Interruptions came from Sen
ator Bacon and pertained to the right
to fortify the canal. Replying to this
inquiry Mr.. Spooner said that it was
a well known principle of international
law that all treaties. like all statutes,
must be read together, and he con-
tended in this connection that the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty. the original
Hay-Pauncefote treaty and the pend
ing treaty were vastly different.
Questions were asked by Senators
Tillman and Bailey concerning the
right of the United States to blockade
the canal and in reply Senator Spoon
er insisted that the government of the
| United States could not be bound by
any treaty agreement which would
/ prevent this country defending it's own
property in time Of war.
| A very important question was raised
/ by a number of senators on the Demo
| cratic side as to the right of The Unit
ed States to give a differential rate to
vessels engaged in our coastwise trade
This matter brought other senators