New-York tribune., 1901-12-11
kLODGE ON CANAL TREATY.
e,rHE MASSACHUSETTS SENATOR URGES
RATIFICATION WITHOUT
AMENDMENT.
AMENDMENT,

3 Washington, Dec lO-After the transac ction
fof some unimportant routine business to-day
rhe Senate went into executive session num-
tber OF nominations to which there YVES no oppo-
ssition were confirmed. and then Mr. Lodge called
up the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty and made a brief
statement regarding that convention. The Sen
sate then adjourned in order TO give the Demo-
tcratic caucus committee an opportunity hold
a meeting.
Mr.. Lodge contended that the treaty does
away with all the objectionable features Of the
treaty of the last Congress. and enumerated the
particulars IN which the revised agreement con-
forms 20 the action Of the Senate in the last
Congress when the old treaty was before 1t. He
analyzed the new treaty from beginning TO end,
showing that IN specific terms 1t abrogates the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty Of 1850, which, he said,
had stood constantly in the way Of the con-
struction of isthInien canal The abrogation
of this treaty. he centended a most i'm
sportant achievement. and he did not believe that
the United States should would lose op-
Dortunity to make secure that concession
Senator Lodge also called attention to the
omission in Paragraph i of Article III, OF the
words In time of war in time of peace" He
said that in the old treaty the paragraph read
''The canal shall be free and open. in time Of
svar as in time Of peace to the vessels of COM
tsnerce and of war of all nations on terms of
'tire equality" etc He urged that the omission
sof this phrase had the effect practically Of leav-
.jng the United States to do with the canal in
time Of war according to its good pleasure
FREE TO TORTIFY CANAL.
He also referred TO the fact that Rule No.
IN the treaty regulating the control of the Suez
Canal which had been embodied in the original
Hay-Pauncefote Treaty. had been omitted in the
revised draft He quoted this rule. which pro-
vidad that mo fortifcations shall be erected
commanding the canal. or the waters adjacent,
etc. This he said, was a material concession
20 the United States, and quite sufficient
to meet the objections made against that agree
rnent. that the United States would have no
power TO protect its property. 1t practically
left the United States free to fortify the canal
IN case 1t should be considered desirable to do
so. and in line with the omission of the
restriction keeping the canal open in time OF
war The fact that the invitation contained In
the old treaty TO various powers TO give their
adherence TO the agreement had been eliminated
from the new convention, he said, was another
compliance with the action Of the Senate on
the original treaty
These concessions, Mr.. Lodge urged, were
ample and he contended that they were Of such
q nature TO render the new treaty acceptable
TO all American citizens who wanted to see
canal constructed Practically, he said, Great
Britain had agreed TO turn the entire manage
-nent OF the canal over to the United states
not only in time Of peace but in time OF VA war
and no cne could doubt that in case Of hosul-
ties the United States would be at liberty 10
construe the omission Of the clause IN Rule
No. i having this effect.
Senator Culberson asked Mr.. Lodge IL 1t was
not true that Article VIII of the Clayton-Bul-
War Treaty establishing the general principle
of naturalization, Is not retained IN the new
agreement, but Mr.. Lodge replied that, whle
there q declaration to the effect tnst ths
general principle Of naturalization established
by that article is still TO be kept alive, the whole
tenor of the new treaty was to neutraTze ana
cancel the old agreement He did not consider
that tie article would be Of effect any longer
It is understood that the treaty viii be ca4ieo
M tomorrow.