The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-12-13
Mr.. Lodge Wanted the Hay-Paunce-
fote Agreement Ratified Yester-
day, but Did Not Succeed.
NEW POINTS BROUGHT OUT
AND DIFFERENTIAL
RATE QUESTIONS DISCUSSED.
Report on Senator Morgan's Canal
BilI-President Hutin, of the Pam
anna Company, Denounced.

Dec IL ne SENATE To-
day agreed to take a vote on Monday be-
fore adjournment on the row Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty for the abrogation of the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty and opening the way for
the construction of canal across the
Isthmus of Panama by the United States.
This agreement was reached after four
hours of debate, sufficiently interesting to
insure the constant attendance OF most of
the senators. Senator Spooner, who was
one Of the principal speakers of the day,
had just concluded when Senator Lodge
made an effort to secure vote. 1t devel-
oped there were other senators who desired
to be heard. the result being that the date
for the vote was postponed until Monday.
The agreement provides for an adjourn
ment from to-day until Monday and for
meeting at II a. m. on that day. The I'M
derstanding is that as soon as practicable
after the Senate convenes Senator Lodge
shall move an executive session and that
the treaty shall have the entire attention
of the Senate until final vote is reached
before the adjournment for that day.
The principal speakers to-day besides
Senator Spooner were Senator Money and
Senator Foraker. Mr.. Money, while finding
much in the treaty to criticise said that, as
lC AOuLu tic lOIluISS OI TIE pIOpOStu Cdlldl
across the isthmus inextricably intertwined
with the treaty, he could not see his way
clear to do anything that would prevent or
even delay ratification.
Senator Foraker maintained that the pro-
visions of the new treaty meet every OBJ
lection made to the original Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty and cover every essential thing
that was included in the amendments made
Nv
garded it as of the utmost Importance that
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty should be wiped
out. This result was effected by the
vention under consideration. He asserted
that all rights of the United States were
amply protected 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 Spooner, who followed, was fire.
quently interrupted by senators on the
Democratic side One of the first Interrupt
tions came from Senator Bacon and per-
tanned to the right to fortify the canal. Re-
plying to this inquiry, Mr.. Spooner said it
was a well-known principle of international
law that all treaties, like all statutes, must
be read together, and he commended In this
connection, that the Clayton-Bul treaty,
the original Hay-Pauncefote treaty and the
pending treaty for the proper construction
of the agreement should be considered
one series. The Clayton-Bulwer agreement
had provided that there should be no forti-
fications on the canal and the Hay-Paunce-
carried a similar provision, but the new
treaty struck out the entire Notifications
provisions, clearly showing that England,
after contendlng for half century against
Notifications, had waived that provision
thus practically conceding our right to for
tify the proposed canal
Questions were asked by Senators Till
man and Bailey concerning the right of the
United States to blockade the canal and
in reply Senator Spooner insisted that the
government of the United States could not
be bound by any treaty agreement which
would prevent this country defending its
own property in its own way in time of
war. Senator Tillman pressed the inquiry
somewhat and he and MIR. Spooner engaged
in a somewhat spirited collOquy which, as
usual with them, ended good naturally.
A very important question was raised by
a number of senators on the Democratic
side as to the right of the United States TO
give a differential rate to vessels engaged
in coastwise trade. This matter
brought other senator's from the Repub-
lcan side Of the chamber into the con-
troversy. Senators Perkins and Nelson
were among those who contributed to this
feature of the controversy. Senator Mel
son insisted that under existing law the
United States would have a perfect right
to give to the cosstwise trade of this coun-
try any benefit II might see proper in the
use of the canal. 1t was perfectly we'll I'M
derstood. he said. that the ships of a
foreign nation could not do a coastwise
business, and Great Britain had made the
treaty with the full knowledge of this
fact.
Senator Perkins made the assertion that
by the acquisition control of a strip of
territory through which the canal would
pass the United States would acquire rights
which would subject that territory to our
coastwise laws, and said foreign bottoms
could not trade between ports of the United
States and any portion of the territory
through which the canal was built
This view was combated to a certain
extent by Senators Tillman and Bacon
the former intimating that if that were
true relative to the United States, Great
Britain, on account of her Canadian pos
! session, and Mexico both extending from
ocean to ocean, also could contend for
similar privileges. This, he thought also
would be true of any South American
country whose territory extends from
ocean to ocean.
| trary opinion and insisted that these coun-
tries did not acquire any rights of a coast
wise trade character along the route Of the
proposed canal. which territory was I'M
der the control of, or which might be
coded to the United States The mere fact
that Canadian or Mexican territory extends
from ocean to ocean would not give them
the right to make demands for the gener-
osity or business foresight of the United
States. Senator Spooner also contended
that the United States would have a right
TO control the canal after it's own manner
during any to which this country
might be a party.
In the Senate to-day Mr.. Clapp of Min
nesota, offered a resolution providing for
consideration of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty
in open session. 1t went over until the next
legislative day.
SENATOR MORGAN's BILL.