The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-12-13
VOTE MONDAY
 ON THE TREATY Agreement Reached by
 the Senate. FOUR HOURS OF DEBATE SpO0ner, Money and F0raker
FOUR HOURS OF DEBATE
Spo0ner, Money and F0raker
 Deliver Speeches.
Ohio Man Contends That the Pro- visions of the New Treaty Meet Every Objection to the
 Rejected Instrument.

Washington, Dec. 12.-The Senate today asI ecd to meet at Il a. m. Monday and to tske a vote before adjournment on the new Hay -Pauncefote treaty for the ab- regat!on of the Clayton -Bulwer treaty
 and orening the way for the construction of a canal across the Isthmus of Panama
 by the United States.
 This agreement was reached after four
 hours of dc bate. There will be some mere speeches. The principal speakers today besides Senator Spooner were Sem ator Money and Senator Foraker. MT.
 Mercy, while finding much in the treaty
 to criticise, said that he found the for
 tunes of the proposed canal ineXtricably
 irttrtwined with the treaty and he could
 rot see his way clear to do anything to prevent or ever delay ratification. He ob-
 jected to the neutrality provision of the
 Cla ytcn- Bulwer convention and the pro- vis.on for police control of the canal. He argued that the effect of these provisions
 inevitably must be to limit and prescribe
 the power of the United States to control its own property In case of war
 Senator Foraker maintained Chat provi- sions of the new treaty meet every ob-
 jection to the original Hay-Pauncefote
 treaty and cover every essential thing that was included in the amendments made by the Senate to that document.
 He regarded it as of the utmost impor-
 tance that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty should be wiped out and that under this treaty our absolute and complete control of the canal could not be questioned by Great Britain or any other power.
 Senator Foraker was frequently inter-
 rupted 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 construction
 of Notifications by the United States
 would be an act of war Mir. Foraker re-
 piled in the negative, declaring that not only would such an act not be an act of hostility, but that to build Notifications in case of ecesslty was one Of the in- herent rights of the government.
 Mir Bacon responded that he for one
 would never bring himself to vote for the ratification of the treaty with the
 understanding that his government was to violate it.
 Mir Foraker retorted sharply to the
 effect that his friend from Georgia could not be 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. Mir Bacon replied that he had not meant | to assume virtue that he did not pos- sess nor to imply that other Senators
 were not as jealous of the country's good
 name as he himself was. Mir. Foraker
 then declared that he had not meant to charge MT. Bacon with an unfair as-
 sumption but simply to say that like all
 other Senators supporting the treaty, he felt he was giving his name to a trans action which would be honorably carried out as between nations.
 Senator Spooner also was frequently in- terrupted by Senators on the Democratic side. Senator Bacon asked about the right to fortfy the canal. MT. Spooner said that it was a well known principle of international law that all treaties, like, all statutes must be read together, and he contended in this connection that the l Clayton- -Bulwer treaty, the original Hay Paupcefote treaty and the pending treaty l for the proper construction of the agree ment should be considered as one series. 1 The Clayton Bulwer agreement had pro- vided that there should be no fortifca- | tions of the canal and the Hay-Paunc- | efote treaty of the Fifty-sixth Congress had carried a similar provision, but the new treaty struck out the entire fortifi- cation provision. clearly showing that England, after contending for half | century against Notifications, had waived | that provision, thus practically concedins
 our right to fortify the proposed canal.
 Questions were asked by Senator Till | man and Bailey concerning the right | of the United States to blockade the canal
 and in reply Senator Sponer insisted that
 the government of the United States
 could not be bound by any treaty agree
 ment which would prevent this country's | defending its own property in it's own | way in time of war. Senator Tillman
 pressed the inqury somewhat and he and | MT. Spooner engaged in a somewhat | spirited colloquy, which, as usual with | them, ended good naturedly.
 l very important question was raised | nv number of Senators on the Demo- cratic side, as to the right of the United | States to give a differential rate to ves- | sels engaged in our coastwise trade. | Senator Nelson insisted that under ex- | istine law the United States would have | a perfect right to give to the coastwise 1 trade of this country any benefit 1t might | see proper in the use of the canal. It
 was perfectly well understood, he said,
 that the ships or d foreign nation could
 not do a coastwise bushes and Great | Britain has made the treaty with the full | knowledge of this fact.
 | Senator Perkins made the assertion that
 bv the acquisition or control of a strip | of territory through which the canal | would pass the United States would l acquire rights which would subject that | territory to our coastwise laws and said l Soreipn bottoms could not trade between
 norts of the United States and any DOT lion of the territory through which the canal passes.
 This view was cOmbatted to a certain
 extent by Senators Tillman and Bacon,
 thc former intimating that if that were
 trne relative to the United States. Great | Briain, on account of her Canadian pos
 snssions and Mexico. both extending from | oooon to ocean. also could contend for
 similar privileges. This he thought also
 ,,,n,,Id be true of any South American country whose territory extends from
 ocean to ocean.
 Senator Spooner was decidedly of a pooA Efral