The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1901-12-13

ing his name to a transaction which
would be hOn0rably carried out be-
tween nations
Senator SpOoner. who followed. also
was frequently interrupted by senators
on the Democratic side. One of the
first interruptions came from Senator
Bacon and pertained to the right 60
f0rtifying the canal Replying to this
inquiry, Mr. SpoOner said that it was
we'll known principle of international
law that all treaties like all statutes
must be read together and he contend
ed in this connection that the CLAYTON
Bulwer treaty the original Hay-Paun-
cefote treaty and the pending treaty
for the proper construction of the
agreement should be considered as one
series. The Clayton BuIwer agreement
had provided that there should be 10
tortihcation of the canal and the Hay
PauncefOte treaty Of the Fifty-sfXth
congress had carried a similar pro-
vision, but the new treaty struck cut
the entire Notifications provision.
clearly showing that England. after
contending for half a century against
fortihcations, had waived that pro-
vision, thus practically conceding our
right to fortify the proposed canal
Tillman Asks Question.
Questions were asked by Senator's
Tillman and Bailey concerning the
right OF the United States TO blockade
the canal, and in reply Senator Spoon
er insisted that the government OF the
United States could not be bound BIZ
any treaty agreement which would
prevent this country defending its own
property in its own way I'm time OF
war. Senator Tillman pressed the ia-
quiry somewhat and he and Mr.
SpOOner engaged in a somewhat spir-
tied cOllOquy which. as usual with
them, ended good naturally
A very important question was
raised by a number Of senators on the
Democratic side as to the right Of the
United States to give diherential rates
to vessels engaged in our coastWise
trade. This matter brought other SEN
atCrs 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 controversy.
Senator Nelson insisted that under
existing law the United stateN. would
have a perfect right to give 10 the
c0astWise trade Of this country any
benefit it might see proper ia the use
Of the canal Tt was perfectly well
tAAAA0A 0AVN+r tiF Sol Aar AAacA AalH SHIPS
a foreign nation could not do a coast
wise business. and Great Britain had
made the treaty with the fun kn0wl-
edge of these facts.
Rights to be Acquired
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 sub
jeet that territory to our coastwise
laws and said foreign bottoms could
not trade between ports of the United
States and any portion Of the territory
through which the canal was built
This view was COmbatted by Senators
Tiliman and Bacon, the former inti-
mating that If that We're true. relative
TO the United States, Great Britain. on
account of her Canadian possessions.
and Mexico, both extending from ocean
to ocean. also could contend for sim
liar privileges. This. he thought also
would be true of any South American
country whose territory extends from
ocean 10 ocean,
Senator SpOoner was decidedly of a
contrary opinion, and insisted that
these countries did not acquire any
rights of a cOastwiSe trade character
which territory was under the control
of or which might be ceded to the
United States. The mere fact that
Canadian or Mexican territory extends
from ocean to ocean would not give
them the right to make demands on
the generosity or business foresight of
the United States
Spooner's Contention.
Senator Spooner also c0ntended that
the United States would have a right
to control the canal after its own man
ner during any war to which this
country might be a party
Senator Mason interjeCted that treaty
agreement never binds a nation to the
extinction of its military rights and
duties. Senator SpOoner assented 10
this and said that no matter what
might be the provisions of the treaty,
the nation could not be accused of dis
honor or immortality if its terms were
broken in defense Of its own existence