The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-12-12

-. ...,. j.
 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 prospective chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, in sup port of it.
 MT. Bacon replied to the speech made yesterday by Senator Lodge He said he could not freely accept any treaty which does not place the isthmian canal enure- ly under American auspices and Ameri- can control. This, he said, the pending treaty does not do. nor does 1t do any thing like it. It did not by long odds &C., complish what had been accomphsneo by the Senate amendments made to the last Hay-Pauncefote treaty. The Davis amendment he said, had abrogateq all the objectionable provisions on tnSt treaty as negotiated and it did not matter what provisions there were In inc agfss= ment so long as the United States were authorized by it, as they were PyIf1e p,1nc. pal Davis amendment, to secure Yle safety and maintenance of the canal by
 
 their own forces.
 That amendment had given this country a free hand to do what was necessary TOT the protection and defense or the canal whereas the present treaty earned all the restrictions which were or-s HaiS contained in the old treaty, leaving out the notifications of the DAVIS ahiehu- ment. .,,
 He also pointed out that the treaty renroduces the restrictions of the old Suaz Canal treaty, which had been ln- cornorated in the original convention. He charged that these restrictions hau h.en copied verbatim from the old treaty the only material change being In the omission of the words 'in time or war as in time of peace" which dld not' III his opinion, change the character ot 'ne agreement. ,, .-,,,,oh .ha advocates of the treaty make to criti- cisms ia that the canal would be under the full control of the United States In time of war, but this is no more true new than under the old treaty and It IS strange thing that all the provisions re- fer to the control of the canal Tn war notwithstanding it is contended here tnat in that contingency the removal or this phrase places the canal under our aoso- lute control
 I
 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 gwen to the United States which was not given to Great Britain was found in the pro- vision "rhe United States shall be at liberty to maintain such military force along the canal as may be necessary to protect it against lawlessness and disor- der"
 This he said. was not sufficient to make the canal an American institution, and if the Davis amendment had been necessary to render the original treaty acceptabl it was equally necessary in this instance.
 He considered the pending treaty every whit as objectionable as the treaty Of last session He quoted the fourth ar ticle of the pending treaty as follows
 ''It is agre, d that no change of terri torial sovereignty or of international re- laticns of the country or countries which are traversed by the hrt"r u. caral shall affect the general principle of naturalization or the obligation me high contracting parties under the pres. ent treaty
 The effect of this provision, be said was inevitably to surrender control oi