The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1901-12-12
DEBATE ON THE
CANAL TREATY
Senator Bacon Discusses Its
Objectionable Features.
WILL OFFER NO OBSTRUCTION
CULLoM SPEAKS FOR CoNvEN-
TON IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
PIE COUNTER

Washington. Dec. 1.-Two speeches
on the -Pauncef3te treaty were
made in the executive session of the
senate today. one Gy Senator Bacon,
in opposition to the treaty, and the
other by Senator Cullom, the prospec-
tive chairman of the committee on for
eign relations in support of it.
Mr.. Bacon replied to the speech made
yesterday by Senator Lodge He
summed up his objection in the state
men THAT he could not freely accept
any treaty which does not place the
isthmian canal entirely under Amerl-
can auspices and American control
This, he said, the pending treaty does
not do, nor does 1t do anything like IT.
1t did not by long odds, accomplish
what had been accomplished by the
senate amendments made to the Hay
PauncefOte treaty at the last session of
congress.
The Davis amendment he said. had
abrogated all the Objectionable prOVi-
siOns of that treaty as negotiated, and
It did not matter what provisions there
were in the agreement SO long as the
United States were authorized, as they
were by the principal Davis amend
ment. to secure the safety and main
tenance Of the canal by their own force.
Free Hand Not Given.
That amendment had given this
country a free hand to do what was
necessary for the protection and de-
tense of the 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 that the treaty re-
produces the restrictions of the old
Suez canal treaty, which had been
incorporated i'm the original convention.
lie 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 ] Of the Suez canal agreement.
This omission did not. in his opinion
change the character of the agreement
THE only reply" he said. which
the advocates of the treaty make to
the criticisms is that the canal would
be 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 it is a strange thing that
ali the provisions refer TO the control
or the canal IN war. Notwithstanding
il is contended here that in that con-
tingency the removal of this phase
places the canal under or absolute
control"
Inconsistency of the Treaty.
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
hostilities. 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 reguIa-
ton 2, providing that "the United
States shall be at liberty TO maintain
such military police along the coast as
may be necessary to protect it against
lawlessness and disorder"
This he said, was not sufficient to
make the canal an American institu-
tioa and if the Davis amendment should
be necessary TO render the original
treaty acceptable, 1t was equally nee
l-.-.4t---.-4