The age-herald., 1901-12-12
Cannot Accept Treaty Which Does Not Place Canal Under
 American Control
SENATOR cULLOM FAVORS II
Says That the United States Could In Times of War Control the Canal In Any Way It
 Saw Fit.

Washington. December II. - Two speeches on the Hay-tauncefote treaty were made In the executive session of the Senate today, one by Senator Bacon, in opposition to the treaty. and the other by Senator Cullom, the prospective chair man of the committee on foreign rela- tion in support of it.
 MT. 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 canal entirely under American auspices and American control. This, he said, the pending treaty does not do, nor does it do anything like It. It did not by long odds accomplish what had been accom- plished by the Senate amendments made to the last Hay-Pauncefote treaty.
 The Davis amendment, he said had abrogated all the objectionable provis- ions of that treaty as negotiated and 1t 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 amendment to secure the safety and maintenance of the canal by their own forces. That amendment had given this country free hand to do what was necessary for the protection and defense 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 amend ment
 Reproduces Restrictions.
 He also pointed out that the treaty reproduces the restrictions of the old Suez canal treaty which had been incor- porated in the original convention. He charged that these restrictions had been copied verbatim from the old treaty, the only material change being in the omis- sion of the words fin time of war as in time of peace" which did not. in his opin- Ion, change the character of the agree ment.
 ''The only reply" he said. which the advocates of the treaty make to criti- cisms is that the canl would be under the full control of the United States in time of war, but this is more true now than under the old treaty. and 1t is a strange thing that all the provisions re- fer to the control of the canal in war. notwithstanding 1t is contended here that in that contingency the removal of this phrase places ,Le canal under abso- lute 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 hos tilities. He contended that the only pow CT given to the United States which was not given to Great Britain was found in the provision that the United States shall be at liberty to maintain such mili- tary force along the canal as may be nee essary," to protect 1t against lawlessness and disorder.
 Not American Institution.
 This, he said, was not sufficient to make the canal an American institution and if the Davis amendment had been necessary to render the original treaty acceptable 1t was equally necessary in this instance. The pending treaty every whit objectionable as the treaty of last session. He quoted the fourth article of the pend Ing treaty as follows:
 "It is agreed that no change of terri korial sovereignty or of international rela- Hons of the country or countries travers- ed by the before mentioned canal shall affect the general principle of neutraliza- lion or the obligation of the high contract Ing parties under the present 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 1t should pass to the United States. He pointed out that this restriction had not been incorporated in the first treaty and said 1t was entirely out of place in the revised agreement. Indeed, he thought there would be almost IS much objection to guaranteeing neu- trality on land owned by the United Btates on the Isthmus of Panama as on lands held by canal crossing the penin- Bula of Florida.
 MT. Bacon announced that while he had no intention of voting for the treaty he would do nothing to obstruct its ratif- eatiop.
 CulIom Favors 1t.
 Senator Cullom congratulated the Sen IA aud h ,trxv% R,A I.nft tlAV-O are two things in connection with the new treaty upon which he said practical ly all are agreed the desirability of the yupercession of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and the necessity for the con- btruction of an isthmian canal
 He contended that the new treaty rad lcally changes the conditions represented by the first Hay Pauncefote treaty, clear ly relieving 1t of the necessity of the Davis amendment. because the treaty would permit the United States under in- ternational law to own, manage and de- fend the canal in any way that it may choose. In other words. in a war with Great Britain or with any other power, the treaty would be suspended. under the law which govern nations until the war should be ended, when it would be re- yived and again enforced. He dwelt upon the fact which, he said was the most inn portant circumstance to be considered, that the new treaty supercedes and abro- gates the Clayton-Bulwe convention of 1850, and for this reason would be of un- told value to the country.
 He admitted that the new treaty retains the general principle of naturalization, but urged that 1t does not re-enact or keep alive any of the provisions of the treaty of 1850. Naturalization applied to all nations alike, but to none of them for any longer time than they observe the regulations prescribed by the United States. When they should fail in this ob- servance. we could close the canal under the terms of the treaty. In short, there was no provision In the pending conven- tion which would interfere without right as nation to close up the waterway to any belligerent power.
 He contended that the provision in re-