The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1901-12-18
BACON ON The CANAL.
Wants American Control Pro-
posed Treaty Unsatisfactory.

Washington, Dec. 1.-Two speech
es 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 other
by Senator Cullom, the prospective
chairman of the committee on foreign
relations, in support of it.
Mr.. Bacon replied to the speech
made yesterday by Senator Lodge in
presenting the report of the commit
Tee on foreign relations to the senate.
He summed up his objections in the
statement that he could not freely ac-
cept any treaty which does not place
the isthlnian canal entirely under
American auspices and American con-
troll. This, he said, the pending treaty
does not do, nor does it do anything
like it. Il did not by long odds ac-
complish what had been accomplished
by the senate amendment to the Hay
Pauncefote treaty that had been under
consideration at the last session Of
said, abrogated all the Objectionable
provisions of the 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
amendment, to secure the safety and
maintenance of the canal by their
own force. That amendment had given
this country free hand to do what
was necessary for the protection and
defense Of the canal whereas the pres
ent treaty carries all the restrictions
which were originally contained in the
old treaty, leaving out the modifca-
tions of the Davis amendment. Re
ferring to the treaty he pointed out
that it reproduced the restrictions of
the old Suez canal treaty which had
been incorporated in the original con-
vntion.
He charged that these restrictions
had been copied almost verbatim from
the old treaty, the only material
change being in the omission Of the
words sin time of war as in time Of
peace ''fron1 rule l 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 the time or
country, preventing the United States
from controlling the canal in case of
hostility with any other power. ("
The only reply" he said, which
the advocates of the treaty make to
criticism 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 contended here that in that con-
tingency the removal OF this phase
places the canal under our. absolute
control. - He said the war restric
tions to the treaty were entirely in
consistent 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 regulation 2 pro-
viding that the United States shall
be at liberty to maintain such mill
tary police along the canal as may be
necessary to protect it against lawless-
ness and DISORDER but 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 accept
able it was equally necessary In this
instance.