The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1901-12-12
pEBATE ON lie
CANAL TREATY
tcOntinued from Page j.

CONTINUED from Page j.
nessary in this instance. He eensid-
i cred the pending treaty as objection
able as the treaty Of last session. He
quoted the fourth article Of the pend
ing treaty as follows:
1t is agreed that no change Of ter
/ ritOriaI sovereignty or Of international
relations of the country or countries
/ traversed by the aforementioned
canal shall affect the general prin-
eiple of naturalization OF the obliga-
ton of the high contracting parties IN
Ger the present treaty"
Effect Of the Provision.
The effect OF this provision. he said.
was inevitably TO surrender control Of
he canal belt in case the ownership Of
the soil embraced in it should pass to
the United States He pointed out
that this restriction had not been in
corporated in the first treaty and said
it was entirely out of place in the re-
vised agreement. Indeed. he thought
there would be almost as much Objec
ton to guaranteeing neutrality on land
owned by the United States on the
tsthmus of Panama as on land held by
a canal crossing the peninsula OF Flor
ida.
In conclusion. Mr.. Bacon announced.
that while he had no intention of vOt-
ing for the treaty. he would do nothing
to obstruct its ratification.
Senator Cullom Congratulated the
senate and the country upon the fact
that there are two things in connection
with the new treaty upon which. he
said. practically all are agreed. One
~ 81 III
superceSsion Of the Clayton Buiwer
treaty and the other the necessity for
the construction Of an isthmian canal.
Cullom Defends Treaty.
He contended that the new treaty
radically changes the conditions pre-
scented by the first Hay-Pauncefote
treaty clearly relieving it Of the neces-
sity of such an amendment as that
made TO the old treaty upon the Sug-
geStiOn of Senator Davis. because the
treaty itself would permit the United
states, under international law to own,
manage and defend the canal in any
way that it may choose.
In other words. he added. in a war
with Great Britain or with any other
power the treaty would be suspended,
under the law which governs nations,
until the war should be concluded.
When 1t would be revived and again en-
forced. He dwelt upon the fact, which,
&c said. was the most important cir
cumstanCe to be considered. that the
new treaty sUpercedes and abrogates
the Clayton Bulwer convention of 1850.
and for this reason would be Of untold
value to the country.
He admitted that the new treaty re-
tains the general principle Of neutrali-
cation, Is did the original Hay Paunce-
tote treaty but he urged that it does
not re-enact or keep alive any of the
provisions of the treaty of 1850. While
it retains the doctrine of naturalization.
the provisions making the retention.
applies, the senator contended. to all
nations alike, but to none of them for
any longer time than they observe the
regulations prescribed by the United
States.
May Close the Canal.
When they should fail in this OBJ
serTance we should close the canal I'M
der the terms of the treaty. All ma
tons would be treated on terms of fair
ness and equality by allowing all to use
the canal in time Of peace and shutting
out all in time of war in case it should
be found desirable to do so.
In short Senator CunOm urged. there
Is no provision in the pending conven-
ton which would interfere with our
right Is a nation to close up the water
way 20 any belligerent power. He con-
tended that the provision in regard to
the rOlicing of the canal applies only
TO its control in time of peace and not
m time of war. The United States. be-
ing the owner of the property. under
the terms of the law. could control it
with either the police or a military
power as il might choose for the pro-
lection Of our governments property.
Change of Sovereignty.
Referring to the fourth article of the
treaty, which was not contained in
the old treaty, Senator Cullom held
that the provision regarding the change
OF sovereignty would make no real diff
ference in the conditions, as the same
rule would apply if the sovereignty of
the country traversed by the canal
should come to the United States.
Under that imprOba bic condition. the
canal could be closed in case Of war.
Just as it could be in case of war.
erelgnty should remain where it now
IS as the senator predicted it would re-
main
In this connection, he quoted from
President Roosevelt's message, saving
that the United States is not seeking
10 extend its borders, and adding that
the chances were ten to one that this
country would not seek to secure new
territory IN that direction As a mat
ter OF fact he said, the people do not
want more territory than we now have
buI are content TO leave the boundaries
as they at present exist.