The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1901-12-13

assumption. but simply to say that. Ike az
other Senators supporting the treaty. he felt
he was giving his name to transaction
which would be honorably carried out be-
tween nations.
Right to Fortify the Canal.
Senator Spooner. who followed. also was
frequently interrupted by Senator's on the
Democratic side. One of the first inter-
ruptions came from Senator Bacon. and
pertained to the right to fortify the canal
Replying to this inquiry, Mr.. spooner said
national law that all treaties. like all stat
ufes. must be read together. and he con-
tended in this connection that the Clayton
treaty and the pending treaty for the proper
construction of the agreement should DC
considered as one series
The Clayton-Bulwer agreement mad pro-
vided that there should be no fortifications
of the canal, and the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty Of the Fffty-sixth Congress had car
struck out the entire fortiica tions provision.
clearly showing that England. after CON
tending for half century against fortifica-
tons. had waived that Provision thus pras.
tically conceding our right to fortiry the
proposed canal.
Tillman and Bailey Want to Know.
Questions were asked by Senators TILL
man and Bailey concerning the right Of the
United States to block i1e the canal. and In
reply Senator ;oocner ir::sted that the
Government OF the Tnitel States could not
would prevent this country's defending its
own pseDsrty = rs own @:y IN IN time inn,g OF
gagged in a somewhat spirited cOlloQuy.
which. as usual with them. ended good-na-
turedly.
very important question vas raised by
q number OF Senators on the Democratic
side as to the right Of the United States to
give dinerential rates to vessels engaged in
G u-N ro do 10 matt hpp Oh
other Senator's from the Republican side OF
the chamber into the controversy. Sena-
tors Perkins and Nelson were among those
who contributed to this feature OF the con-
troversy
Senator Nelson insisted that under exist
ing law the United States would have a per-
this country any benefit 1t might see prop
er In the use Of the canal. 1t was perfectly
well understood. he said. that the ships Of
foreign nation could not do a coastwise
business. and Great Britain had made the
treaty with the full knowledge Of this fact.
Would Acquire Certain Rights.
Senator Perkins made the assertion that
by the acquisition or control OF a strip OF
territory through which the canal would
pass the United States would acquire rights
which would subject that territory to our
could not trade between ports Of the Uni
ted "-.'es and any portion Of the territory
through which the canal was built This
Senators Tillman and Bacon. the former in
timating that II that were true relative to
the United States Great Britain, on ac-
count of her Canadian possessions and
Mexico. both extending from ocean to
ocea- also could contend for similar privi
leges. This. he thought. also would be true
OF ar South American country whose ter
ritory extends from ocean to ocean.
Senator Spooner was decidedly OF q con-
trary opinion. and insisted that these coun-
tries did not acquire any rights Of q coast
wise-trade character along the route Of the
proposed canal. which territory was under
the control Of or which might be cedeI 10
the United States. The mere fact that Ca
madam or Mexican territory sxten6s from.
ocean to ocean would not give ther, the
right to mike demands for the generosity
or business foresight of the United STAGES.
Senator Spooner also contended that the
United States would have a right TO con-
troll the ca l1i after their Own manner dur
ing any war to which this coEn;ry might
be a party.
Senator Mason interjected that treaty
agreements never bind a nation to the ex-
junction of its military rights and duties.
Senator SpJ3rcr assented to this. and said
ti:at no matter what might be the p-,v,-
sions of the treaty. the nation could not be
accused OF dishonor immortality IL Its
terms were broken in defense Of its ow:1 ex- ,
tstence.