The Washington times., 1902-06-19
CONTINUED from Third Parc.)

session. had adopted the constitutional
amendment.
Speaking of the Walker commission,
Mr.. Spooner said that no one would I'M
peach its integrity, ability. or engineer
ing skill Every one knew that the
problem was one OF infinite complica-
tions from an engineering standpoint.
and every enc knew that the object OF
creating the commission was to have
data and the opinions of experts laid
before Congress. so that Con zress might
proceed conservatively and wisely.
The mind of the people, he said, had
not been focused simply cn Nicaragua.
They were taking a larger view of the
question. And from the time the COM
mission was appointed It had not been a
question Of the canal (all agreed to
thaJ. but a question OF route-one or
other of which the people of the United
States were determined to have.
If a majority of the Senate believed
that the Nicaraguan route was the best
route they would SO vote: il they bs-
lieved that the Panama route was the
best and that 1t could be obtained they
would so vote.
While Mr.. Spooner was stating some
of the advantages of the Panama route,
as laid down by the commission, Mr..
Morgan interpolated remark that he
was prepared to controvert them.
81 have no doubt" said Mr.. Spooner.
that the Senator is prepared to contro-
vert anything stated in favor OF the
Panama route" And he went en- with his
argument.
A Point of Consequence.
Mr.. Spooner said that a point Of in
finite consequence to his mind was the
difference in the lenrth Of the two
canals-one forty-six miles lcpg and one
$50 miles long. Everyone could see that
the shorter the canal the better. The
Panama canal was enc through which a
steamship could go In the daytime. and
through which a sailing ship could go,
with tug. between sunrise and sunset.
He regarded that as an unspeakable
advantage. Addressing himself to the
remark of Mr.. Jones of Arkansas to the
purpose Of the substitute being to de-
feat the construction of any canal. Mr.
Spooner said that he had heard 1t
charged that that would be the effect.
but not that 1t was It's purpose. He said
that the theory of the substitute was
to put before the Senate a bill based
on the broad view of the report Of the
commission
First. that the Panama canal was a
practicable canal; second. that the Mic
Iagua canal was feasible and practical
tle canal, and third. that the Panama
canal was the best canal for the Unit
ed States to choose; and that II the
Panama canal property could be obtain
ed for forty millions, and IL salts
factory concession could be obtained
from the Colombian government, the
President OF the United States should
proceed with the construction of the
canal
Speaking OF the reconvening OF the
isthnian commission, Mr.. Spooner said
it dealt with the subject in view OF the
fundamental change OF conditions-the
reduction of the selling price from s109,-
100000 to s40,000,000.
That was not the only change" Mr..
Morgan suggested.
Yes" said Mr.. Spooner. at was the
only chance. The Panama property was
still the same property. and the Panama
route was still the same route. The
advantages of the one over the other
still remained the same"
Mr.. Morgan reminded Mr.. Spooner that
one OF the commissioners, Mr.. Haupt,
stated that he had signed the report of
the commission under protest. Mr..
Spooner on that point said that Mr.
Haupt had shown indefensible weakness
in giving a report without being sat
isfied about It. He would have thought
better OF him II he had stated that he
disseEted from the report.
Compliments for Mr.. Morgan.
He tMr. spooner) could not find IT in
harmony with his judgment to disregard
the report of the commission and follow
the idea OF q Senator. He compIimented
Mr.. Morgan for his rare skill and in
dustry in the advocacy of an isthmian
canal, and said that the Senator's name
would stand in history as the father of
the canal; but he tMr. Spooner) could
not follow him.
Mr.. Morgan acknowledged the compli-
ment, and asserted that he was not act
ing on his own judgment. but on three
reports OF the commission.
Mr. Aldrich asked Mr.. Spooner
whether under his substitute he meant
that no money could be expended by the
President until a satisfactory treaty
with the Colombian government was
negotiated and ratified by the Senate
II do" Mr.. spooner responded Il do
not understand that a treaty can be any
thing more than nero proposition until
1t is submitted to the Senate and rati-
fed by the Senate"
In the course OF colloquy as to the
title to be obtained from the new Pan
anna company, Mr.. Mitchell declared
that 1t would ten years before good
title could be obtained
The Senator frightens me-" Mr..