The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-12-13
CROSS FIRE
ON CANAL
PIauANT DEBATE IN SENATE os
PROVISIONS OF THE NEW
TREATY
DEMOCRATS RAISE POINTS
spooner, Foraker and Nelson in the
Role of Defenders of the Hay
PauncefOte Agree
mcnt
DEMOCRATS RAISE POINTS
WILL VOTE ON NEXT MONDAY

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12.-The senate
agreed today to take vote before ad-
journment on Monday on the new Hay
Pauncefote treaty for the abrogation of
the Clayton-BulWer treaty and opening
the way for the construction of a canal
across the isthmus of Panama by the
United States. This agreement was
reached after four hours IF debate, Suf-
6ciently interesting to insure the con-
stant 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 a vote. 1t developed
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 of the senate from today until Mon
day and for meeting at IL o'clock of
that day, one hour in advance of the
usual time. The understanding is that as
soon as practicable after the senate con-
venes, Senator Lodge shall move an ex-
ecutive session and that the treaty shall
have the entire attention of the senate
until a final vote is reached. before the
adjournment for that day.
The principal speakers today beside
Spooner were Money and Foraker. Mr.
Money, while finding much in the treaty
to criticise, said that as he found the
fortunes of the proposed canal across the
isthmuS ineXtricably intertwined with the
treaty he could not see his way clean
to do anything that would prevent or
even delay ratification.
Neutrality Provision DisIiked.
The particular features of the new
treaty with which he found fault were
those retaining the neutrality provision
of the Clayton-Bulwer convention and
specifying police control of the canal
when built. He argued that the effect
of these provisions inevitably must be to
limit and prescribe the power of the
United States to control its own property
in case of war.
Senator Foraker maintained that all
rights of the United States were amply
protected under tnis treaty and that our
absolute and complete control of the
canal could not be questioned by Great
Britain or any other power. He said he
was firmly convinced that the treaty
could be honestly supported by every
patriotic citizen.
Senator Foraker was frequently inter-
rupted by Senator Bacon. In the course
of one of these Interruptions Mr.. Bacon
asked if it was not true that under the
terms of the treaty the construction Of
be an act of war.
Mr.. Foraker replied in the negative, de-
claring that not only would such an act
not be an act of hostility, but that to
bund fortifications in case of necessity
was one of the inherent rights of the
government.
Bacon Raises Objections.
To this Mr.. Bacon responded that he
for one, would never bring himself to
vote for the ratification of the treaty
with the understanding that his govern
ment was to violate it.
Mr.. Foraker retorted sharply to the ef-
feet that his friend from Georgia could
be no more virtuous along the line of
maintaining the countrys honor in the
matter of keeping its agreements with
other nations than were other senator's.
Mr. Bacon replied that he had not
meant to assume virtue that he did
not possess, nor to imply that other SEN
ators were not as jealous of the country's
good name as he himself was.
Senator Spooner, who followed also
was frequently interrupted by senator's
on the Democratic side. One of the first
interruptions came from Senator Bacon.
and pertained to the right to fortify the
canal. Replying to this inquiry Mr..
Spooner said the Clayton -Bulwer agree
ment had provided that there should be
no fortifications of the canal and the
-Hay-Pauncefote treaty Of the Fifty-siXth