The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-12-13
VOTE ON THE TREATY
Senate May Ratify Hay Pauneefote
Convention Monday.
THERE WILL BE SPEECHES
Many Senators Are Dissatisfied With
the Agreement.
SOME WILL NOT VOTE UPON IT.
However, They viii Not Go So Far As TO
Vote Against II.
ONE WILL NOT VOTE UPON IT.
VIEWS WERE EXPRESSED YESTERDAY.
Treaty Was the Subject OF Four Hours
Debate in Which Senator Bailey
Took Part

| Took Part.
| Washington, December 12.-1he senate to.
day agreed to meet at IL n. m. Monday and
TO take vote before adjournment on the
new Hay Pauncefote treaty for the sbroga-
| ton of the Clayton ulwer treaty and open
ing the way for the construction of canal
across the isthmus of Panama by the
United states. This agreement was reach.
ed after four hours of debate. There will
| be some more speeches
| The principal speakers today besides Sen.
ator Spooner were Senator Money and Sen
ator Foraker. Mr.. Money. while finding
much in the treaty 10 crticIse said that
as he found the fortunes OF the proposed
| canal across the isthmus lnextft cably Inter
| twiued with the treaty, he could not see
his way clear to do anything that would
| prevent or even delay ratification He OBJ
! lected to the neutrality provision OF tho
| Clayton Bulwer convention and the previs-
ion for police control of the canal. lie
argued that the effect Of these provisions
inevitably must be to limit and prescribe
| the power OF the United states to control
| It's own property in case OF war.
Senator Foraker maintained that provis-
ions of the new treaty meet every oh1ec-
| tion made To the original Hay-Pauncetote
treaty and cover every essential thing thAt
was Included in the amendments made by
the senate to that document, He regarded
1t of the utmost Importance That tue
! Clayton Bulwcr treaty should be wiped out
under this treaty and that our absolute
and complete control OF the canal could
not be questioned by Great Britain or any
other power Senator Foraker WAS fire.
quently interrupted by Senator Bacon. In
the course of one OF these Interruptions
Mr.. Bacon asked that II 1t was not true
that under the terms OF the treaty the con
structioD of Notifications by the United
States would be an act OF war;
Mr.. Foraker replied In the negative He.
claring that not only would such an net
not be an act of hostility, hut that Dullu'
ing fortihcations In case of necessity was
one Of the inherent rights of the govern
Nv Bacon responded that he for one
would never bring himself TO vote Tor me
ratification OF the treaty with the under
standing that his government was 10 vio'
Mr.. Foraker retorted sharply to the ef
feet that his friend from Georgia conId no'
Inc more yirtuous along the ltne OF main
tanning the eountry's honor In the matter
of Keeping Its agreements with other ma
tions than were other senators. br. Bacon
replied that he had not meant to assume
a virtue that he did not possess nor Ia
imply that other senators were not NJ
Jealous of the country good name as u,
himself was Mr.. Foraker then declared
T1at he had not meant to charge Mr,
Bacon with an unfair assumption, but
simply to say like all other senators sup
morning the treaty, he felt ne Was RlNlhS
His name 10 n transaction which would be
houornhly carried out as between nations
Senator Spooner also was frequently ln'
terrupted by senators on ne de mo ri,.h,
side Senator Bacon asked ABOUT the rlgni
to fortify the canal Mr.. Spooner sald
that II was a well known principle OF N,
ternational law that all treaties, hke NJ
statutes must he read together and he con
tended In this connection that the Clayton
Bulwer treaty. the original lay -Panncei9te
treaty and the pending treaty TOT Wy
proper construction OF the agreement should
he considered as one series. The clayton
Bulwer agreement had provided that there
should be no fortihcauons OF the cahai snu
the Hay PBuncefote treaty of the FIFTY
sixth congress had carried similar pro
vision. hut the new treaty struck Out ths
entire Notifications provisions, ciearly
showing that England, after contending toi
n half century us to fortldcatlons, had
waived that provision, thus practically al
testing our right TO fortify the proposed
Questions were asked by Senators. TIL
man and Bailey concerning the right oi
the United states 70 blockade inc cana
and 10 reply Senator Spooncr Insisted ina
the government OF the United states coulf
NOT he bound by any treaty agreement
which would prevent this cnunrys defend
ing It's own property In Its own way IN time
Of war. senator 'rilman pressed the in
ouiry some what aud he and Mr.. Spoone
engaged In somewhat spirited collnquy
which, as usual with them ended Roo'
+ 4 very important question was raised b!
number Of senators on the democratl'
side ne 10 tue FlEhi OF Auf lulhfh pAhfi
10 give dlffereutal rate TO vessels engage
In our coastwise trade.
Senator Nelson insisted that under Ell
listing LAWS he United states would nay,
perfect rignt 10 give 10 the const WIS.,
trade Of this country any beneht II mlgh
see proper in the use Of the canal II wa
perfectly well understood; he said' ina
. the ships Of foreign nation could not NJ
| q coastwise business and Great Britain hac
made the treaty with the full knowledge
Of this fact.
! by the acquisition NJ control OF strip q
territory through which the canal woult
pass the United States would Acquire
rights which would subject that TERRITORY
to our coastwise laws and said foreign bot
toms could not trade between ports OF IN
$ United States and any portion OF the Yer
a ritory through which inc cannl was bnllf
tent by Senators Tillman and Bacon, IN
former intlmatlnE that y that were true
relative 10 the United states, dreat bIit
and Mexico both extending from cream =
ocean also could contend Tor similar priv
lcges. This he thought also wosld he tri
% any South American country whose tes
ritnry extends from ocean 10 ocean.
Senator spooner was decidedly Of con
trhry opinion and insisted that these coun
tries did not acquire any rights OF coast
wise trade character along the route OF IN
proposed canal. which territory was undo
the control OF, or which might be cede'
to, the United States. The mere fact this
Canadinn or Mexican territory extend
from ocean Ia ocean would not give then
the right to make demands for the generos
lty or business foresight or Ne Hnite'
States
Senator Mason interieeted that treatl
agreements never bind a nation 70 the ex
tinction of its military rights ana duties
senator SpoOner assented IN This and sell
that no matter what might he the pro
visions ~ the treaty. the nation could NO
be accused az dishondr or immorahy !
J its terms were broken la defense OF It's avn
existencs. A1AA&kk4aAl