The sun., 1901-12-12
Senator Lodge Interprets tho Treaty

senator Lodge Interprets tho Treaty
Senator LoDoE's reported remarks
m executive session on Tuesday throw
q food of light upon the meaning OF the
canal treaty. Mr.. LODGE had charge
OF the treaty in the Committee on For
sign Relations and he has charge OF II
now in the Senate. He Is In close touch
with the State Department, which NO
eotiated the treaty. II any mans under
standing and Interpretation Of it's doubt
ful provisions can be authoritative, bis
ought to be.
II Is unfortunate that the text OF the
convention submitted to the Senate
should be such as to leave room for any
difference Of opinion as to it's meaning.
Probably this ambiguity is one OF the
necessary incidents Of a patriotic at
tempt to correct, by a process Of diplo-
matte compromise, the initial errors OF
our Governments position both in 1850
and in 1900. 1t is part Of the price we
pay for two great mistakes.
But the only question which any Sena-
tor need ask is whether the treaty does
or does not give US that full control
over the canal, alike in peace and war,
which Mr.. ROOSEVELT has declared TO
be vital, no less from the standpoint OF
our sea power than from the standpoint
Of the Monroe Doctrine.
There is no ambiguity in Senator
LoDoR's answer to this all-important
question. His remarks, 1t is true. were
In executive session, but the newspaper
reports agree as to their substance.
After pointing out the admitted fact
that the new treaty specifically abrogates
the Oayton-Bulwer Treaty, the Senator
proceeded to explain the three particl-
lars OF disputed or uncertain meaning
TO which we referred on Saturday:
1. The right to fortify. The original
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty Incorporated
Rule Of the suez code, which provides
that mo Notifications shall be erected
commanding the canal, or the waters
adjacent" This restriction Is delib-
erately omitted from the present treaty.
Mr.. LODGE, and infercntially President
ROOSEVELT and Secretary HAY. under
stand the omission of the restriction
70 mean that the United States is left
free TO fortify the canal in case it should
ever be desirable so to do.
2. The neutrality OF the canal In time
Of q war to which we may be a party.
The former treaty as proposed pro-
vided in the first rule under Article II.
that 1.-THE canal 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" The words in time OF
war as in time Of peace" have now been
eliminated from the text of the treaty;
and Mr.. LODGE interprets the omission
~ practically leaving the United States
Government, the sole interpreter Of the
rules, free 10 do what II pleases with
the canal In time OF war.
8. The new stipulation that no change
of sovereignty or OF the international
relations OF the countries trayersed
by the canal shall affect the general
principle OF naturalization, or modify
our obligations under this treaty Mr..
LoDGE said that this merely meant that
IL the United States Government ever
came into possession Of the territory.
10 would live up 10 the bargain That is
20 say, We suppose, that, the right 10
fortify and the right TO deal as we please
with the canal in time Of war against
us being part 81 the bargain as IL is now
we therefore merely pledge ourselves 20
grant equal privileges 20 all nations in
time Of peaoe. To this commercial
naturalization practically no opposition
has made itsslf heard during the present
discussion
We commend Mr. LoDdEs etplAna
ton Of the terms of the treaty 10 certain
newspapers ~hloh, having early and
foolishly committed thcm.elNcs 10 the
hIsl ldaa of a thoroughly denaiionall1sd
canal are nov lsbonng IA show that the
pfeson, treaty oont.inT,laies such q canal
and meahs Substantially all that IL w.
fortunate pro,io' .ssor mean,