The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-12-13
TINE FOR TALK
ON NEW CANAL
Senate Postpones Vote to.
Hear Further Speeches
INTERESTING DEBATE.
Sharp Encounter Between Senators
! Foraker and Bacon.
OUR RIGHTS IN TIME OF WAR.
coastwlse Trade Would Rightly Receive Bene-
fits Which Could Not Accrue to Ships
in a Foreign Trade--The Cana.
Bill to Have Right of
Way Until Vote
is Reached.
Sharp Encounter Between Senators
! Foraker and Bacon.
OUR RIGHTS IN TIME OF WAR.
(By Associated Prcss.)

Senate agreed to-day to take a vote be-
fore adjournment next Monday on the
new Hay-Pauncefote treaty for the alb
rogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty
and opening the way for the construc-
ton of a canal across the Isthmus of
Panama Ey the United States. This
agreement was reached after four hours
Of debate sufficiently interesting to
insure the constant attendance of most
of the Senators.
Senator Spooner who was one of the
principal speakers of the day, had just
concluded when Senator Lodge made an
effort to secure a vote. t developed that
there were other Senators who desired
to be heard, the result being that the
date for the vote was postponed until
Monday The agreement provided for an
adjournment of the Senate from to-day
until Monday, and for a meeting at II
O'Clock of that day, one hour in advance
Of the usual time. The understanding is
that as soon as practicable after the
Senate convcnes Senator Lodge shall
move an executive session, and that the
treaty shall have the entire attention
of the Senate until a final vote is reacheo
before the adjournment for that day
PRINCIPAL SPEAKERS.
The principal speakers to-day, besides
Senator Spooner, were Senator Mooney
and Senator Foraker Mr.. Mooney. while
finding much in the treaty to criticise.
said that as he found the fortunes OF
the pr o,osed canal acrosszthe lSthmus
inextricably fntertwined with the trea ty.
he could not see his way clear to doing
ANYTHING that would prevent or even
delay ratification. The particular feat
llres of the new treaty with Which he
found fault were those retaining the
neutrality provision of the CLAY ton-Bul-
wer conventions, and specifying police
control of the canal when built
He argued that the effect OF these pro.
visions inevitably must be to limit and
prescribe the power of the United States
to control it's own property in case OF
war.
A STRONG DEFENSE.
Senator Foraker maintained that pro-.
visions of the new treaty meet every
objection made to the original Hay.
Pauncefote treaty. and cover every es
sential thing that was included in the
amendments made by the Senate to thai
document. He regarded it as of the ut
most importance that the ClaytonBul
wer treaty should be wiped out. This
result was effected by the convention un
der consideration. He asserted that al
rights Of the United States were ann!,
protected under this treaty. and Thai
our absolute and complete control of the
canal could not be questioned by Grea
Britain or any other power.
Senator Foraker was frequently. inter
ruptcd by Senator Bacon In the course
of one Of these Interruptions Mr.. Bacor
asked if it was not true that under the
terms of the treaty tlre construction o.
Notifications BY the United States, would
be an act of war.
AN INHERENT RIGHT.
Mr.. Foraker replied in the negative
declaring that not only would such ar
act not be an act of hostility. but thu
to build fortifcatons in case of necess
~ was one of the inherent rights Of the
Government To this Mr.. Bacon re
sponded that he. for one, could ,rel
bring himself to vote for the ratifica.
ton of the treaty with the understand
ing that his Government was to violate
it.
Mr. Foraker retorted sharply to the
effect that his friend from Georgia could
be no more yirtuous along the line OF
maintaining the countrN's honor in III.
matter OF keepng its agreements Will
Other ia tions than We're other Senators
Mr.. Bacon replied that he had not
meant to assume a virtue that he did not
possess. nor to imply that other Senator'S
We're not as jealous of the country's S
good name as he himself was.
Mr.. Foraker then declared that he had
mot meant to charge Mr. Bacon with an
unfair assumption,. but simply to saw that
ike all other Senators supnorting the
treaty. he felt he was giving his name
to a transaction which would be honora-
ably carried ont as between nations
To TORTaFY CANAL.
Senator Snooner. who followed. also was
frequently lnterrunte0 bv Senators of the
: Democratic side. One Of the first inter
~nptions came from Senator Bacon and
riartained to the rieht to fortifv the ca
nal. Renlvins to this inquiry Mr.. Spoon
er said that it was. a well known nrin-
cipie OF International law that all trea-
ties. like all statutes. must be read TO-
sether. and he contended in this connec-
ton that the C,avton-R Rulwer@ treaty. the
orisinal Hav-Panncefote treaty and the
nanolpE treaty, for the proper understands
ing agreement should be considered as
one series. The Clavton-B,n'wer treatv
had provided that there should be no
fortifica tsons on the. canal and tho Hay
Pauncefote treaty of the F'fty-s'xth Con-
press had carried, a similar provision: but
the new treaty struck out the entire
fortifications provision. clearly showing
that England. after contending for half
a century against fortif1ca TONS had
waived that provision, thus practically
conceding our right to tortlfy the pro-
posed canal
Questions were asked by Senator's Till
man and Bailey concerning the right of
tho United States to Blockade the canal,
and in reply Senator, Spooner insisted that
the Government of the United States could
not be bound by any treaty agreement
which would prevent this country's de-
Tending It's own property in its own way
in time Of war.