New-York tribune., 1901-12-13
VOTE ON TREATY MONDAY
tN AGREEMENT REACHED IN
THE SENA TIE.
SENATOR'S FORAKER AND sPoONER
URGE RATIF1CATION-CAN COAST
WISE TRADE BE FAvOREna


fote Isthnian Canal Treaty before adjournment
next Monday. This agreement was reached af-
Ter four hodrs Of debate sufficiently interesting to
insure the constant attendance of most of the
Senator'S. Senator Spooner. who was one of
the principal speakers Of the day. had just con-
cluded when Senator Lodge made an effort to
secure vote 1t found that other Sena-
tors desired TO be heard the result being that
the date for the vote was postponed until Mon
day. The agreement provided for an adjourn
rnent Of the Senate until Monday, and meeting
at II o'clock on that day, one hour in advance
of the usual time. The understanding is that
as soon practicable after the Senate meets
Senator Lodge shall move an executive session
and that the treaty shall have the entire at
tention Of the Senate until a final vote is
reached before adjournment
SENATOR FORAKER'S ARGUMENT
The principal speakers to-day. besides Senator
spooner, were Senators Foraker and Money
Mr. Foraker maintained that provisions Of the
new treaty meet every objection made 10 the
original Hay-Pauncefote Treaty. and cover
every essential thing that included IN the
amendments made by the Senate to that docu-
rnent He regarded il as Of the utmost i'm
portance that the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty should
be wiped out. This result was effected by the
convention under consideration. He asserted
amply protected under this treaty. and that alb
solute and complete control OF the canal could
not be questioned by Great Britain 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 provisions he was firmly convinced
that il could be honestly supported by every
patriotic citizen
Senator Foraker was frequently interrupted
by Senator Bacon. Mr.. Bacon asked II 1t was
not true that under the terms Of the treaty
the construction Of fortifcations by the United
States would be act of war.
Mr.. Foraker replied in the negative, declaring
that not only would such act not be an act
Of hostility but that TO build Notifications IN
case Of necessity was one Of the inherent rights
of the government
Mr. Bacon replied that he for would never
bring himself to vote for the ratification Of the
treaty with the understanding that the govern
ment was to violate It.
Mr. Foraker retorted sharply that his friend
from Georgia could be no more virtuous along
the line OF maintaining the country's honor IN
the matter Of keeping its agreements with other
nations than were other Senators.
Mr. Bacon said he had not meant to assume
2 virtue that he did not possess, nor TO imply
that others were not Jealous Of the coun-
trys good name as he was
MI Foraker declared that he had not meant
to charge Mr. Bacon with an unfair assumption
but simply TO say that, like all other Senators
supporting the treaty. he felt he was giving his
name TO a transaction which would be honor
ably carried out as between nations
Mr.. sPOONER ON RIGHT TO FORTIFY
Senator Spooner, who followed. also was fire.
quently interrupted by Senators on the Demo
A. ;-,4av +io,ae navraa
from Senator Bacon, and pertained to the right
IN fortffv the canal. Replying TO this in
ouiry, Mr. Spooner said that it well
known principle Of international law that all
treaties like all statutes. must be read together.
and he contended that the Clayton-Bulwer
Treaty, the original Hay-Pauncefote Treaty and
the pending treaty for the proper construction
of the agreement should be considered as one
series The Clayton-Bulwer agreement had
provided that there should be no fortifcations
Of the canal and the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty
Of the LVIth Congress had carried similar
provision. brt the new treaty struck out the
entire Notifications provision, clearly showing
that England, after contending for half cent
ury against Notifications, had waived that pro-
vision thus practically conceding the right TO
fortify the proposed canal.
Questions were asked by Senators Tillman and
Bailey concerning the right of the United States
to blockade the canal, and in reply Senator
Spooner insisted that the government Of the
United States could not be bound by any treaty
agreement which would prevent this country
from defending its own property in its own way
in time Of war. Senator Tillrnan pressed the
inquiry. and he and Mr.. spooner engaged in
spirited colloquy, which, as usual with them,
ended good naturally
QUESTION OF DETRIMENTAL RATES
An important question raised by num-
Der Of Senators the Democratic side as to
the right of the United States to give differen-
tsl rate to vessels engaged in coastwise trade.
This matter brought other Senators from the
Republican side OF the chamber into the con-
troversy.
Senator Nelson insisted that under existing
law the United States would have perfect right
to give TO the coastwise trade Of this country
any benefit IL might see proper in the use OF
the canal It was perfectly well understood, he
said. that the ships Of foreign nation could
not do coastwise business, and Great Britain
had made the treaty with the full knowledge
Of this fact
Senator Perkins asserted that by the acquisi-
hon or control of strip Of territory through
which the canal would pass. the United states
would acquire rights which would subject that
territory 10 its coastwise laws and said foreign
vessels could not trade between ports OF the
United States and any portion OF the territory
though which the canal was built
This view was combatted by Senators Tillman
and Bacon the former intiraatfng that that
We're true relative tc the United states. Great
Britain, on account of her Canadian possessions,
and Mexico both extending from ocean 10 ocean,
also could contend for similar privileges. This,
ne thought also would be true OF ang oouln spatl
American country whose territory extends from
Ocean 10 ocean.
Senator Spooner was OF decidedly contrary
opinion and insisted that these counfr1es clo
no' acquire any rights of coastwlss trace
Character along the route OF the proposed cahai,
which territory was nnder me co1IrUi oI @ oI
might be ce.ied 10 the United States. The mere
fact that Canadian or Mexican territory extenos
from ocean 10 would not give then, me
tight 20 make demands upon the generosity or
cfa<SS S1r1f nf