The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1901-12-11
Senator Lodge Discusses New
Document Clause by Clause
Showing That it Abrogates
CIayton-BuIWer Treaty Of 1850
WAY NOW OPEN TO
CONSTRUCT THE CANAL
BY Terms of the New Treaty the
United States Can Deal with
the Canal in Time of War AC-
Cording to Its Own Good Pleas
ure-Other Features

Washington, Dec. 10.-After num-
Der of nominations had been confirm
ed in the executive session of the Sen
ate, Senator Lodge caEed up the Hay
Pauncefote treaty and made a brief
statement regarding the convention.
The Senate then adjourned in order to
give the Democratic members an OPP
portunity to hold a meeting.
Mr.. Lodge contended that the new
treaty does away with all the object
ionable feutures of the treaty OF the
last Congress and enumerated the par
ticulars in which the revised agree
ment conforms 10 the action of the
Senate in the last Congress when the
old treaty was before it. He analyzsd
the new treaty from beginning to end,
showing that in specific terms 1t abro-
gates the Clayton Bulwer treaty of
1850, which, he said, had stood con-
stantly in the way of the construction
of the Isthmian canal.
The abrogation of the treaty, he con-
tended, was a most important achieV-
ment and he did not believe the United
States should or would lose an oppor-
tunity to make secure that concession
Senator Lodge also called attention to
the omission in paragraph / of article
8, of the words lin time of war as in
time of peace" He said that in the
old treaty the paragraph read 1.-The ca
nal shall be free and open, in time of
war as in time of peace, to the vessels
of commerce and Of war of all nations
on terms Of entire equality etc"
He urged that the omission of this
phrase had the effect practically of
leaving the United States to deal with
the canal in time of war, according to
its own good pleasure. He also refer
red to the fact that rule seven in the
treaty Of the powers regulating the
control of the Suez canal, which had
been embodied in the original Hay
Pauncefote treaty had been omitted in
the revised draft. He quoted this rule,
which provided that mo fortifications
! shall be erected commHding the canal
or the waters adjacent etc"
This he said, was a material GJnceS-
! sion to the United States and was quite
| sufficient to meet the objections that
| the United States would have no power
| to protect it's property. 1t practically
! left the United States free to fOrtify
| the canal in case it should be consid-
| cred desirable to do so and was in line
/ with the omission of the restriction
! keeping the canal open in time of Var.
The fact that the invitation, contain
! ed in the old treaty, to VARIOUS powers
| to give their adherence to the agree
ment had been eliminated in the new
! convention. which he said was in COM
pliance with the action Of the senate
on the original treaty: These conces-
sions, Mr.. Lodge argued, were ample
and he contended they were of such
a nature as to render the new treaty
acceptable to all American citizens who
| wanted to see a canal constructed.
! Practically, he said. Great Britain
| had agreed to turn the entire manage
ment of the canal over to the United
| States, not only in time of peace but in
! time Of war and no one could doubt
| that in case of hostilities the United
| States would be at liberty to construe
! the omission Of the clause in rule one
| as having this effect.
| Senator Culberson asked Mr.. Lodge
| if it was not true that article VIII OF
| the Clayton-Bulwer treaty establish
| ing the general principle of neutraliza-
| tipn is not retained in the new agree
ment, but Mr.. Lodge replied that wh@Te
! there was a declaration to the effect
that the general principle of neutrali-
cation established by that article is
still to be kept alive, the whole tenor
of the new treaty was to neutralize
and cancel the old agreement. He did
not consider that the article would be
! of effect any longer.
1t is understood that the treaty Will
| be called up tomorrow.