The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-12-12
The Executive Session,
(By the Associated Press)

Washington, Dec 1.-Two speeches Oh
he Hay Pauncefote treaty were made in
the executive session of the Senate to-
lay, one by Senator Bacon in opposi-
ion to the treaty and the other by Sem
ator Cullom, the prospective chairman
Of the Committee on Foreign Relations.
support of it.
Mr.. Bacon replied to the speech made
yesterday by Senator Lodge in present
ng the report of the Committee on For
eign Relations to the Senate. He sum-
ned up his objections in the statement
hat he could not freely accept any
treaty which does not place the isthmian
ANAL entirely under American aus
lices and American control. This, he
laid, the pending treaty does not do, nor
does it do anything like it. 1t did not
oy long odds accomplish what had been
Accomplished by the Senate amendment
70 the Hay Pauncefote treaty that had
been under consideration at the last
session of Congress. That amendment
lad he said, abrogated all the objection
lble provisions of that treaty as nego-
lated, and it did not matter what provi-
5ions there were in the agreement so
ong as the United States were author
;zed as they were by the principal Davis
amendment to secure the safety and
maintenance of the canal by their own
force That amendment had given this
country a free hand to do what was
necessary for the protection and defense
Of the canal, whereas the present treaty
carries all the restrictions which were
oorignally contained in the old treaty,
leaving out the notifications Of the
Davis amendment
Referring to the treaty he pointed out
tffat it reproduces the restrictions of the
old Suez Canal treaty, which had been
incorporated in the original convention.
He charged that these restrictions had
been copied almost verbatim from the
old treaty, the only material change be-
ing in the omission of the words "in
time of war as in time of peace" from
rule one of the Suez Canal agreement
This omission did not, however, IN his
opinion, change the character of the
agreement as there was no limitation as
to the time or country, preventing the
United States from controlling the canal
in case of hostility with any other pow
er
'The only reply" he said, (which the
advocates of the treaty make to criti-
cisms is that the canal would be under
the full control of the United States III
time of war, but this is no more true
now than under the old treaty, and it
is a strange thing that all the provisions
refer to the control of the canal in time
Of war, Notwithstanding it is contended
tn, hot fpon hn
moval of this phase places the canal
under our absolute control"
He said the war restrictions of the
treaty were entirely inconsistent with
the claims of Senator Lodge that this
country should say who should use the
canal and who should not in case OF
hostlities. He contended that the only
power given to the United States. which
was not given to Great Britain was
found in the last sentence of regulation
two, providing that "the United States
shall be at liberty to maintain such mill
tary police along the canal as may be
necessary 70 protect it against lawless-
ness and disorder" but this, he said, was
not sufficient to make the canal an
American institution, and II the Davis
amendment has been necessary to render
the original treaty acceptable 1T was
equally necessary in this instance. He
considered the pending treaty, every
whit, as Objectionable as the treaty of
last session. He quoted the fourth ar
ticIe of the pending treaty as follows:
1T is agreed that no change of terri
torial sovereignty or of international
relations of the country or countries
traversed by the before mentioned
canal shall affect the general principle OF
naturalization or the obligation of the
high contracting parties under the pres
ent treaty"
The effect of this provision, he said
was inevitably to surrender control of
the canal belt in case the ownership Of
the soil embraced in it should pass to
the United States. He pointed out that
the restriction had not been incorporated
in the first treaty, and said II was en-
Continued on page fve.)