The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1901-12-13

Senators bacon and CuIIom Express
Their Views Against and for Ratf-
ncation of the Treaty-FOrmer Op-
posses and Compact Which Does not
Give our Government Entire Con-
troll of such CnnaI-This He Main
tains the Pending Treaty Does not
Do--.fe Strongly Advocates the
Davis Amendment to the Former
Treaty-DecIares his Purpose, How
ever not to Obstruct Ratification.
washington, December 1.-Two
speeches on the Hay-Pauncefote treaty
were made in the executive session OF
the senate today, one by Senator Bacon,
in opposition to the treaty, and the 9TH
er by Senator Cullom, the prospective
chairman of the committee on foreign
relations, in support of it.
Senator Bacon replied to the speech
made yesterday by Senator Lodge In
presenting the report Of the committee
on foreign relations to the senate. He
summed up his objections in the state
ment that he could not freely accept
any treaty which does not place the is
thmian canal entirely under American
auspices and American control. This.
he said, the pending treaty does not
do. nor does it do anything like it. 1t
did not by long odds accomplish what
had been accomplished by the senate
amendment to the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty that had been under considera-
ton at the last session of congress.
That amendment had, he said, abrogat-
ed all the Objectionable provisions OF
that treaty as negotiated, and it did not
natter what provisions there were in
the agreement. so long as the United
States were authorized. as they were by
the principal Davis amendment, to Sc
cure the safety and maintenance OF the
canal by their own force. That amend
ment had given this country free hand
to do what was necessary for the pro-
lection and defense of the canal: where
as. the present tretay carries all the
restrictions which were originally con-
tanned in the old treaty, leaving out the
notifications of the Davis amendment.
Referring to the treaty. Senator Ba-
con pointed out that 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 al
most erbatim from the old treaty, the
only Material change being in the omfs-
sion of the words ''in time of war as in
time Of peace" from Rule 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 time or country,
preventing the United States from con-
trolling the canal in case of hostilities
with any other power.
'"The only reply" said Senator Bacon,
(which the advocates of the treaty
make to 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 strange thing that all
the provisions refer to the control of the
canal in war, Notwithstanding it is. con-
tended here that in that contingency
the removal of this phase places the
canal under our absolute control"
Senator Bacon said the war restric-
tions Of the treaty were entirely incon-
sistent with the claims Of Senator
Lodge that this country should say who
should use the canal and who should
that the only power to the United States
which was not given to Great Britain
was found in the last sentence of Reg
ulation II providing that "the United
States shall be at liberty to maintain
such military police along the canal as
1awlessness and disorder" but this, -
he said. was not sufficient to make the
canal an American institution" and if
the Davis amendment had been neces-
Sary to render the original treaty ac-
ceptable it was equally necessary in
this instance. He considered the pend
ing treaty every whit as Objectionable
as the treaty Of last season. He quot
ed the fourth article Of the treaty as
follows:
cit is agreed that no change Of terri.
torial sovereignty or Of internationa.
relations Of the country or countrie.
traversed by the aforementioned cana
sill affect the general principle of neu
rahzation or the obligation of the higf
contracting parties under the present
treaty"
The effect Of this provision, he said
was inevitably to surrender control o.
the canal belt in case the ownership o.
the soil embraced in it should pass t.
the United States. He pointed out tha
this restriction had not been incorpor
ated in the first treaty and said it wa.
entirely out OF place in the revised
agreement. Indeed he thought ther,
would be almost as much objection tt
guaranteeing neutrality on land owned