The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1901-12-12
SENATORS TALK
OF THE TREATY
Bacon and Cullom Take
Sides on the Canal
Question.
Arguments For and Against
the Measure Are
Advanced.


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.
Bacon referred to the speech made yes
terday by Senator Lodge. He summed up
his objection in the statement that he
could not freely accept any treaty which
does not place the isthmian canal entire
ly under American auspices and American
control. This, he said, the pending treaty
does not do, nor does it do anything like
it. 1t did not by long odds, he said, ac-
complish what had been accomplished by
the Senate amendments made to the Hay
Pauncefote treaty at the last session of
Congress.
The Davis amendment, he said, had alb
rogated 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 United States
was authorized, as it was by the princi-
pal Davis amendment, to secure the safe
ty 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 canal, whereas the present treaty
carried all the restrictions which were
leaving out the notifications of the Davis
amendment
Suez Canal Restrictions.
He also pointed out rnat the treaty re-
produces the restrictions of the Old Suez
canal treaty, which had been incorpora ted
in the original convention. He charged
that these restrictions had been COPIED
almost verbatim from the old treaty, the
only material change being m the omis-
time of peace" from rule l OF the Suez
canal agreement. This omission did not.
in his opinion, change the character OF
THE only reply" he said, which the
advocates of the treaty make to the criti-
cisms is that the canal would be unoer
time of war, but this is no more true now
than under the old treaty, and 1t is
strange thing that all the provisions refer
TO the control OF the canat IN wal MI q,
withstanding it is commended here that IN
that contingency the removal or TINS
phase places the canal under our absolute
control"
He said the war restrictions of the
treaty were entirely inconsistent with the
claims of. Senator Lodge that this coun,
try should say who should use me Gahal
He commended that the only power gwen
to the United States which was not given
to Great Britain was found In the last
sentence of regulation 2, providing that
1.-The United States shall be at liberty TO
maintain such military police along TIE
canal as may be necessary to protect II
against laWlesSness and disorder.
This, he said, was not sufficient to make
the canal an American institution and II
the Davis amendment should be necessary
TO render the original treaty acceptable
it was equally necessary in this instance.
He considered the pending treaty as OBJ
jectionable as the treaty of last session.
The Argument of Cullom.
Senator Cullom congratulated the Sen
ate and the country upon tne tact taat
fhe new treaty upon which, he said, prac-
ticaliy all are decided. One OF THESE was
the desirability of the suppression or the
Clayton Bulwer treaty, and the other the
milan canal. He contended that the new
treaty radically changes the conditions
presented by the first Hay-Paunee1ote
treaty, clearly relieving it Of the necessity
of such an amendment as that made to
the old treaty upon the suggestion OF Sem
ator Davis, because the treaty itself
international law, to own, manage and
defend the canal in any way that 1t may
choose. In other words, he added, in a
war with Great Britain, or with any 9TH
under the law which governs nations I'M
til the war should be concluded, when It
would be revived and again enforced. He
dwelt upon the fact, which he said was
the most important circumstance to be
considered, that the new treaty super
sedes and abrogates the Clayton-Bulwer
convention Oh 1851, ana lot InlS reason
would be of untold value to the country.
He admitted that the new treaty re-
tains the general principle Of neutraliza-
ton as did the original Bay-Pauncefote
treaty, but he urged that it does not re-
enact or keep alive any of the provisions
of the treaty of 1850. While it retains the
doctrine of naturalization, the provision
making the retention applies, the Senator
contended, to all nations alike, but to
none of them for any longer time than
they observe the regulations prescribed
by the United States. When they should
fail in this observance we should close
the canal under the terms of the treaty.
All nations would be placed on terms of
fairness and equality by allowing all to
use the canal in time of peace and shut
should be found desirable to do so. In
short, Senator Cullom urged, there is no
provision in the pending convention which
would interfere with our right as a nation
to close up the waterway to any belliger-
ent power
He contended that the provision in re-
gard to the policing of the canal applies
only to its control in time of peace and
not in time of war. The United States
Icing the owner of the property. under
either the police or a military power, as
it might choose, for the protection of our
Governments property.
Referring to the fourth article of the
treaty, which was not contained in the old
treaty, Senator Cullom held that the pro-
vision regarding the change of sovereign
ty would make no real difference in the
conditions, as the same rule would apply
if the sovereignty of the country trav-
ersed by the canal should come to the
condition the canal could be closed in
case of war, just as it could be in case
the sovereignty should remain where il
now is, as the Senator predicted it would