The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-12-11
CANAL. TREATY DISCUSSED
AIKEN UP IN EXECUTITE SESSION
 OF THE SENATE.
Measure Does Away With All the Features of the Last Congress-Also That the Revised Agreem ent Con fo ms to tho Action of the Last Senate.

Washington, Dec. 10-After number of nominations had been confirmed in the executive session of the senate this afternoon Senator Lodge called up the -Pauncefote treaty and made a brief statement regarding that conven- tion. MT. Lodge contended that the new treaty does away with all the features of the last congress and enumerated the particulars in which the revised agreement conforms to the action of the senate in the last congress, when the old treaty was before it. He analysed the new treaty from beginning to end, showing that in specific terms it abro- gates the Clayton-Bulwer treaty of 1850, which, he said, had stood con- stantly in the way of the construction of the isthmian canal. The abrogation of this treaty he contended, was most important achievement and he did not believe that the United States should or would lost an opportunity to secure that concession.
 Senator Lodge also called attention to the omission in paragraph l of article 3 of the words Tn time of war as in time of peace" He said that in the old treaty the paragraph read "The canal shall be free and open, in time of war as in time of peace. to vessels of com- merce and of war of all nations on terms of entire equality" etc. He urg- ed that the omission of this phrase had the effect practically of leaving the United States to do with the canal, in time of war, according to it's own good pleasure.
 He also referred to the fact that rule seven in the treaty of the powers reg ulating the control of the Suez canal, which had been embodied in the orig final Hay Pauncefote treaty had been omitted in the revised draft He quot ed this rule, which provided that mo Qualifications shall be erected com- manding the canal or the waters adja- cent thereto This. he said, was a material concession to the United States, and was quite sufficient to meet the objections that the United States would have no power to meet the ob- 5ections that the United States would have no power to protect its property. It practically left the United States free to fortify the canal in case it should be considered desirable to do so and was in line with the omission of the restric- ton Keeping the canal open in time of war. The fact that the invitation, con- taiiied in the old treaty. to various powers to give their adherence to the agreement had been eliminated from the new convention, he said, was another compliance with the action of the senate nthe original treaty.
 These concessions. MT. Lodge urged, were ample and he contended that they were of such a nature as to render the new treaty acceptable to all American citizens who wanted to see canal con- structed. Practically, he said Great Britain agreed to turn the entire man. agement of the canal over to the Unit ed States not only in time of peace but in time of war, and no one could doubt that in case of hostilities the United states would be at liberty to construe the omission of the clause in rule one as having this effect.
 Senator Culverson asked MT. Lodge if 1t was not true that article VIII of the Clayton Bulwer treaty, establishing the general principle of naturalization Is not retained in the new agreement, but MT. Lodge replied that while there was declaration to the effect that the | grand principle of naturalization estab- lished by that article is still to be kept | alive, the whole tenor of the new treaty was to neutralize and cancel the old | a agreement. He did not consider that | the article would be of effect any longer.
 It is understood that the treaty will be called up to morrow.