The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-12-12
BACON VS..
CULL-0M
CoNsTITUTIoNALIsr,
IN INCIsIvE WORDS, OBJECTS
TO CANAL TREATY
BUT ONE CHANGE IN TERMS
Illinois NTan-That-Leoks-Li
coin Defends the Treaty as
Submitted and Explains
Its Conditions
CONTROL IN TIME OF WAR

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
Cullon1, prospective chairman of the COM
mlttee on foreign relations, in support OF
it.
Mr.. Bacon, replying to the speech maGe
yesterday by Senator Lodge, summed up
his objections in the statement that he
could not freely accept any treaty which
does not place the isthmian canal en-
t1rely under American auspices and
American control. This, he said, the
pending treaty does not do, nor does it
do anything like it. It did not by long
odds accomplish what had been accom-
plished by the senate amendment made
to the Hay-Pauncefote treaty at the last
session of congress.
The Davis amendment, he said, hau
abrogated all the Objectionable provisions
Of that treaty as negotiated and it did
not matter what provisions there were
in the agreement SO long as the Unitea
States was authorized, as it was by the
Davis amendment, to secure the safety
and maintenance of the canal by its own
force That amendment had given this
country a free hand to do what was
necessary for the protection and defense
of the eanal whereas, the present treaty
carried all the restrictions which were
originally contained in the old treaty,
leaving out the notifications of the
Davis amendment.
Unwise Restrictions.
He also pointed out that the treaty re-
produces the restrictions of the old Suez
canal treaty, which had been Incorporated
in the original convention. He charged
that these restrictions had been copied
almost verbatim from the old treaty, the
only material change being in the omis-
sion of the words, 'in time Of war as in
time of peace from rule 1 of the Suez
canal agreement.
This omission did not, in his opinion,
change the character of the agreement.
''The only reply he said, which the
advocates of the treaty make no criti-
cisms is that the canal would be under
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 contingency the removal Of this
phase places the canal under our absolute
CONTROL
If the Davis amendment had been
necessary to render the original treaty
acceptable 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 article of the pending treaty as
follows:
"It is agreed that no change of terri
torial sovereignty of international rela
tions CT the country or countries ira
versed by the tefore mentioned canal
shall affect the general principle of neu-
tralization or the obligation of the high
contracting parties under the present
treaty." The effect of this provision, he
said, was inevitably to surrender control
of the canal belt in case the ownership
of the soil embraces in it should pass to
the United States.
In conclusion, Mr.. Bacon announced
that while he had no intention of voting
for TIE treaty he would do nothing to
obstruet its ratification.
Senator Cullom congratulated the SEN
ate and the country upon the fact that
there are two things in connection with
tically all are agreed. One of these was
the desirahility of the supercession Of the
Clayton-BulS-er treaty, and the other
that of the necessity for the construction
Of an isthmian canal.
CuIlon Defends Treaty.
He contended that the new treaty radi-
cally changed the conditions presented
by the first Hay-Pauncefote treaty,
clearly relieving it of the necessi@ OF