The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-12-12
Proposed Canal Should Be Entirely
Under American Control.
SOME INCONSISTENT RESTRICTIONS
Are Placed Upon the United States Ia
Its Management.
CONVENTION is DEFENDED BY cULLoM.
Prospective Chairman OF the Committee
on Foreign Relations Thinks the Hay
Paunoetote Agreement ls Good,

Washington, December 1.-Two speeches
on the Hay -Pauncefotc treaty were made
In the executive session OF the senate to-
day. ono by senator Bacon. In opposition
To the treaty, aud the other ny senator
! Cullom, the prospective chairman Of the
committee on foreig9 relations in support
of It.
Mr.. Bacon replied to the speech made
yesterday by senator Lodge. He said he
could not freely accept any treaty which
does not place the isthmian caia entirely
under American auspices ana American con
troll. thus, nc sdiu, me penuins treaty docs
not do nor does II DO ahythins hke H. II
did not by long odds accomplish what mad
| been accomplished by tue senate Amehu'
meuts made to the last Ilay'Pauncefolc
| treaty. The DAVIS amendment, ne shld
had abrogated all the obiectionabie pro.
| visions OF the treaty as negotiated ana IL diu
not matter what provisions there We're III
| the agreement long as the bntted states
| were authorized as they were by the prn-
| cipal Davis amendment to secure the safety
! aud maintenance of the canal w their own
| forces. That amendment had given this
/ country free hand to do what was neces-
! sarS for the protection and defe,se of the
J canal. whereas the present treaty carried
| all the restrictions which were originally
| contained in the old treaty. leaving out the
notifications Of the Davis amendment He
! also pointed out that the treaty reproduccs
| restrictions of the old SueL canal treaty,
which had been incorporated In the original
! convention. The charges that these re-
/ strictions had been copied verbatim from
! the old treaty, the only material change
/ being in the omission Of the words IN
/ time OF war as in tiuue Of peace which did
/ not. In his opinion, change tho character
! of the agreement. THE only reply" he
said which the advocates 81 the treaty
I make no criticisms is that the canal wOuld
/ he under the full control Of the United
! states In time of war, but this Is no more
/ true now than under the old treaty and
! 1t is a strange thing that all DE provisions
refer 10 the control of the cbuRi la war,
Notwithstanding 1t is contendrd here TINT
! In that contingency the reniova " this
I phrase places the canal under our absolute
J control"
! lie said the war restrictions Of the treaty
/ ware entirely Inconsistent with the claims
| or Senator Lodge that this country should
! say who should nse the canal and who
| should not In case Of hostllites. He con
/ tended that the only power given to the
/ United States witch was not given to Great
/ Britain was found in the provision that
the United States shall he nj liberty to
maintain such military force along the
/ canal ms may he necessary to protect 10
against lawlessness and disorder" This H.
said. was not sufficient To make the canal
/ an American institution and II TIE Davis
| amendment had been necessary to render
! the original treaty acceptable. 1t was eQuHl-
! ~ necessary in this instance, He cunsid.
cred tho pending treaty every whit as oh
| ioctionaHc rs tho trenty Of last session,
| lie quoted the fourth article of the pending
1T Is agreed that no change Of terrific
| rial sovereignty or Of International rcla-
! tlons of the country or countries traverscd
/ ny the beforemento ned canal shall affect
| the general principle of naturalization or
! the obligation Of the high contracting par
| ties under the present treaty"
The offect of this provision. he said,
| inevitably to surrender control Of the canal
| belt in case tho ownership ~ the soil en-
| hraced in II should pass from the United
| States. lie pointed ont that this rpStrlc-
ton had not been Incorporated in the first
| treaty and said II was entirely ont of
! place in the revised agreement. Indeed, he
thought there would he almost as much oh
| lection to guaranteeing neutrality on land
owned nv the United States on the 18TH
| mus 81 Panama as on land held by a canal
! crossing the peninsula Of Florida.
| Mr.. Bacon announced that while he had
| no intention Of voting for the treaty. he
would do nothing to ohstruct lis ratlhca-
uon
Senator Culionl congratulated the senate
and the country on the fact that there are
I two things In connection with the new
| treaty upon which be said practically all
session Of the CLAYTON Bulwer treaty and
| tho necessity for the construction ~ an
treaty radically changes the conditions IRE
seuted hy the first HAY Pauncefote treaty
! clearly relieving II Of the necessity ~ the
Davis amendment because the trenty
would permit the United Statcs under IN
ternational law, to own. manage and de.
fend the canal In any way thst It may
Z choose In other words. In O war with
Great Britain or with any other power the
treaty would be suspended. under the Jaw
which governs nations. until the war should
he concluded when il would he revived and
again enforced. He dwet upon the Sact
which he said, the most important
circumstance To he considered that inc
new treaty. supercedes and nhrosates the
! Clayton Bdlwer convention of 1850 and for
this rcason would he " untold value to the
country
lie admitted that the new treaty re.
tains the general principle Of ueutraliza-
tion. but urged that II does not re-enact
treaty Of 1870 Naturalization Anplied to
all nations alike. Int % none of them for
any longer time than they observe the
regulations prescribed nv the United States.
When they should fail IN this Observance.
We could close the canal under the terms
Of the treaty. In short. there was no pro
vision IN the pending copvepiion which
would Interfere with our right a. n nation
10 close up thr waterway 70 any belligerent
He contender that the provision in 70.
gard to he policing Of the canal anplies
oniy 70 Its control In times OF peace Then.
the United States heing the owner OF Nv,
property uadPT the terms % law. Il cnHli
control II with. eittSr the police or a mil
Harry power as II night choose
Senator Cullom held that the. provision
| regarding the chnnRe OF sovereignty wonid
mafa no real difference in the conditions,
as the same rule would apply II the soy.
canal should come 10 the Tinted states
In this connection he quoted from Presi.
dent Roesevelts message, saying that me
their borders and adding that the chances
were ~en 70 Que that this country would
rot seek 10 scrr~e new terrifory In that
direction. As a matter of fact. he said
We now have bHi are content 70 leave the
boundaries as they a. present exist