New-York tribune., 1901-12-12
CANAL TREATY DISCUSSED.
AN ARGUMENT FOR RATIFICATION
MADE BY SENATOR CULLOM

AN ARGUMENT FOR RATIFICATION
MADE BY SENATOR CULLoM.
ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF AN IsTHMIAN
WATERWAY SECURED TO THIS CoUN-
TRY-sENAToR BACON STATES
HIS OBJECTIONS.
washington. Dec. 1.-Two speeches were
,.ds on the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty In the
.,ecutive session Of the Senate to-day. one by
Senator CulIon. the prospective chairman OF the
Committee on Foreign Relations in support of
a. and the other by afr. Bacon, OF Georgia, in
opposition.
senator Cullom congratulated the Senate and
the country on the fact that there are two things
in connection with the new treaty on which. he
said, practically all are agreed. One Of these
is the desirability Of supersedins the Clayton
Bulwer Treaty and the other the necessity for
the construction CT an isthmian canal. He con-
,erded that the treaty radically changes
the conditions presented by the first Hay
pauncefots Treaty. clearly relieving 1t Of the
necessity of such amendment as that
made to the old treaty on the sugges-
tion 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 1t may choose.
In other words, he added, In a war with Great
Britain or with any other power the treaty
would be suspended. under the law which gov
s,ns nations until the war ended, when it would
he revived and again enforced. He dwelt on
the fact, which he said was the most important
circumstance to be considered, that the new
treaty supersedes and ahrogates the Clayton
Buwer Convention Of 1850. and for this reason
would be Of untold value to the country.
MIGHT BE CLOSED IN TIME OF WAR
He admitted that the new treaty retains the
general principle Of naturalization. did the
original Hay-Pauncefo.e Treaty. but he urged
that IL does not re-enact or keep alive any OF
the provisions Of the treaty OF 1850. While it
retained the doctrine Of naturalization, the pro-
vision making that retention applied to all ma
tions alike, but to none Of them for any longer.
time than they observe the regulations pre-
scrbed by the United States. When they should
fail in this observance could close the canal
under the terms OF the treaty. All nations
would be treated on terms OF fairness and
equality by allowing all to use the canal in
time OF peacs and shutting out all in time Of
war In case IL should be found desirable to
Go So In short, Senator Cullon urged that there
is no provision in the pending convention which
would interfere with the right Of the United
States TO close the waterway to any belligerent
power.
He contended that the provision In regard to
policing the canal applied only to its control in
time Of peace and not in time Of war. Then,
the United States being the owner Of the prop
erty, under the terms OF the treaty. 1t could con-
troll it with either the police military power
es II might choose for the protection Of our gov
ernrnent and its property.
Referring to the fourth article OF the treaty.
which not contained in the old treaty, Sena-
tor Cullon held that the provision regarding the
change Of sovereignty would make no real diff
ference In the conditions, the same rule would
apply if the sovereignty Of the country traversed
by the canal should come to the United States.
Under that improbable condition the canal could
be closed In case of war, just as 1t could be in
case the sovereignty should remain where II
now is, as he predicted it would remain. He
quoted from President Roosevelt's Message. say
ing that the United States is not seeking to
extend its borders. and adding that the chances
were ten to one that this country would not seek
TO secure new territory in that direction As
matter of fact. he said, the people do not want
more territory, but content to leave the
boundaries as they exist at present.
SENATOR BACoN'S OBJECTIONS.
day by Senator Lodge. He summed up his OBJ
sections in the statement that he could not freely
accent any treaty which does not place the 18TH
raian canal entirely under American auspices
and American control This. he said, the pend
ing treaty does not do, nor does II DO anything
like il. 1t did not by long odds accomplish what
had been accomplished by the Senate amend
nents made to the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty at
the last session Of Congress. The Davis amend
naent he said, had abrogated all the objectiona-
ble provisions of that treaty as negotiated and
it did not matter what provisions there were In
the agreement long as the United states was
authorized, as il was by the Davis amenofnent' 10
secure the safety and maintenance OF the canai
by its own forces. That amerument hao gwen
this country free hand to do what was neces-
sary for the protection and defence or the canal
whereas the present treaty carries an sIe i th.
old treaty leaving out the notifications OF the
Davis amendment.
He also said that the treaty reproduces the re-
strictions of the old Suez Canal treaty, which
had been incorporated in the original conVen,
ton He charged that these restrictions nao
been copied almost verbally from the oio tIeaty,
the nn1v material change being IN the omission
Of the words 'in time Of war as In tlme OF
peace" from Rule i Of the Suez Canal agree
ment This omission did not, in his opinion,
change the character Of the agreement The
only reply" he said, which the aoVocates OF tiis
treaty make to criticisms. is that the CANA
would be under full control OF the Unlteo States
In time of war but this is no more true now
than under the old treaty, and 1t Is a strange
thing that all the provisions refer to the control
Of the canal In war notwithstanding 1t is con-
tended here that In that contingency the re-
moval Of this phrase places the canal unoer our
absolute control"
cRITIcIsFs RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE
He said the war restrictions OF the treaty
were entirely inconsistent with the assertions
Of Senator Lodge that this country should say
who should use the canal and who snoulo not
- -, 20 s.u,.s. ua commended that the