The Atlanta constitution., 1901-12-16
BACON OPPOSES THE
TREATY TO BUILD
CANAL,
Many Of Objections to Old Treaty
Hold Against Present Conven-
tion-Bacon Will Not Fight
Ratification-Cullom
Speaks for Treaty.

si"n-cne ~ SEM tor BScOn. in opposition
to the treaty. and the other by Senator
CJsilon. the prospective chairman of the
committee ON foreign relations. in sup
port 81 it
Mr. Bacon replied to the speech made
Yesterday by senator Lodge in presenting
tire report of the committee on foreign re-
lftiuus t. the senate. Tie summed up
BIS objections i'm the statement that he
-nulf not freely acccp- any treaty which
dses mpg place the isthniian canal entire
Iv under American auspices and Ameri-
sau control. This. he said. the pending
tre1-y does not do. no. does IL do any
thiuE rke it. IL did not. by long odds.
sfcumplish what had been accomplished
rs the senate amendment To the Hay
pauncefOte treaty that had been under
enusidcr1tion "a the last session OF con-
sEess- That amendment had. he said. ab-
r1ratsd the Questionable provisions OF
the treaty - negotiated. and IL did not
matter what provisions there were in
the agreement 81 long rs the United
states were authorized. Gs they were by
tae principal Davis amendment. TO secure
the safety and maintenance OF the canal
rs th'ir own force.
Too Many Restrictions.
Th1- amen linen. had given this ccun-
sury Tor the protection and defense Of
ale anal. whereas the present treaty
carries All the rrstriCtici-s which were
u~I-iuaily contained In the old treaty.
leaving out the notifications OF tn. Da-
v.s amendment Referring To the treaty
D. Fpintcd cut that il reproduces the
restrictions .. the old Suez canal treaty
which had hcen Incorporated in the orig
fuai convention
BE charged that these restrictions had
1seu copied almost verbatim from the
gi treaty. the only material change be-
iug iu the omission Of the words. ''in
tiu. 4 war = N time 81 peace" from
zHlls I II th- Sucz canal agreement This
EMISSION did not however. In his opin-
Son change the character OF the agree
rn "a. -s there WIS no limitation as to
time or country. preNts,tins the United
states from controlling the canal in ease
80 hostility vita any other power-
The only reply he said. which the
sffVsa-sltss u. the treaty make to Crid-
rlsfus Is shat the canal would he under
tae fuii control ~ IA. United states in
fIEuss ~ war. hut this l. No more true now
than uuder the old treaty and II is
srraus-e thirg that All the provisions re-
fer a. the control of thc canal in war.
r.Htwtf'lst. utiiuEs ff is coEtendel here that
tu that contingency the removal oi thls
r1aSe places the c2nal under onr abso-
Esfs --surrpL-'
The War Restrictions.
IL. said the war restrictions of tho
treaty wcr;. entirely inconsistent with the
claims ~ Senator LcIge th.h this cOun-
trv should snv who should use the canal
ami v.Ea should not in c1se ~ HOSTILE
lies EI- cpsltrusied that the only power
1fvfu L. the United StPssS which was
unr given tr Great Britain WAS found in
th.. last sentence ~ regulation provld-
fre that --th. United States shall he at
I1erty a. m-iutain such military polio.
s1eue -h.. canal as my he necess1r.-
10 r-1fTs-t o. against llWlrssneSs and DIS
ORDER but this. DE sad. was not s'i-
f-5eus - make the canal an American IN
-titutiu1. -ut if IA. Davis amendment
laI tre.u nee. =s-rs- L. render the original
treaty acceptable b was equally necs=s-
sly be- this instance
Gle -bnsii.~c,i the pending treaty every
what as Objectionable as the treaty of
lst sess.uu Tie quoted the fourth arti-
.Ia 10 the pending treaty as follows:
-It - agreed thlt no change uf terrific
rfaE saversilrstv ~r uf International relt-
tfsn@ ~ rhts country or countries traNers-
I'D hy thr lscfur~ mentioned canal shall
Ha.-s ths. general principle pi ucutruh-
-sffsu ur thu ol.ltg gaiI"n ~ IN. h-Eh r'ii-
t-a-tlns parties unde- the present
TIN. effect NJ this provision. he said.
MS Inevitably u surrender control of
ra- -auaI hCtt iu cise tEe ownership ~
ta. ssfl cmhts.ced in u should pass tp the
s--Gt.I States lie puiutsd out that this
r.asrictiou had Tot ben Incorporated in
ths first tr..sty ani said it WAS entirely
salr Ell 10 ats.s IN tie rssR lSsst agreement.
IuI..t r, Thought there - lu!d De- al
s.aet ..s ma .E Objection tc guaranteeing
r.eHfrtEltv uu land owned hv the United
<rste~ ra ILL.,. isthmus ~ Pan1rna as On
lllt % 1lt hy canal cr-issing the penin-
s-Is ~ Fi,sida-
En conclusion Mr. Bacon announced
that while De- had ND Intention Il voting
ter ths. rr.atv he wculd a. nothing tO ob-
=.rEct 4t- ratification
CuIlom FnvOrs Treaty.
e.nster CuIInm congratulated the som
ata and tli.. country On the fact that
ra.re are twp things in connection with
-r. new treaty uF,-n which he said p-ac-
t.-llIv &c. ar- agreed. thr dcsirahiii.y II
ta. suns recession ~ the Clayton BulneT
treaty sud the, necessity for the cnnsiTue-
t.n ~ au i~thmiau canal
rf. .-1-tt u,Isd that the new treaty rad
fF~ changes the conditions presented
E.. ra.. nrst H1y-Pauncefpte treaty. clear
lr relieving ic II THE necessity Il the
Davis amendment. because the treaty
4...slH hermit the United States. under
fr-.~ustf.usI l.w. 10 own manage ana
defend the canal in any WY tha- il may
.a.aS-. Iu other words. in a war with
ssret- I;ritilu or with any other power.
-h.. treaty would bs suspended under the
EreE which governs nttinfls- until tie war
should De-. cons. rued. when n would ge
~.-fr..f and again enforced lie dwelt
5r-..r az. fact which. he said. was ths
most frr1rrsrrln- circumstance to Ice CON
sHF.~asI that the new treaty SuperSs'fi's
.Hd ..hr.s--.lr.S the Ellytprl-Bulwer con-
V-s.ntfru ii lS5g and Tor this reason " ould
D.. 81 uutu.i value 10 the country
TFe admitted that the nesv treaty re-
rsFus the s-eut raj principle II NJ ltTal'z''-
.rm t.ut urged that il does NOT rcsnact
- k..r. ALIVE. amy 81 the provisions ot
-H.s treaty II ISlgl Naturalization APPLIED
=. an nations alike. hut - none 81 them
tu~ any longer time than they "lsStrN.
~. regulations prescribed by the United
We Could Close Canal.
-v.,e, they should fail in this ohserv-
-.,s n. could close the canal under the
ta-ns II the treaty. In short. there was
p. provision I'm the pending convention
,ss,f-f would interfere with our TiSh; -
a nation 10 close up the waterway To any
Ilalueerent power
~ .-1ut..r1iisd that the provision In re-
s--~l "a tn. policing II the canal applies
..-.1,- >, its control in times of peace
-rhe-, the United States being the owner
- the property. under the terms Of the
fsvv- n could control IL with either the
rsoiT.-. or A military power as II might
elausa-
senator Cullen held that the provision
ra..srsffuE- the change nf sovereignty
vs.srrId nsl-.. no real difference IN the con-
stftfurlz as the same rule weul1 Apply
- the sovereignty cf the country ui-
versed hv the canal should come 20 me
I-nited States. In this connecuoh the