New-York tribune., 1902-01-09
THE DEBATE IN DETAIL.
NINE OFT OF SIXTEEN SPEAKERS
FAVOR THE PANAMA ROUTE.

Washington. Jan s-The debate in the House on
the Nicaragua Canal bill to-day was opened by Mr.
shackeford, of Missouri, a member OF the COM
rnittee which reported the bill He spoke earnestly
in favor of its passage.
'If you favor this BILL interposed Mr. Bar
tholdt of Missouri why is ii that you and
your Democratic colleagues from Missouri at the
last session voted against a similar bil?'
Because" replied Mr.. Shackleford, ''the bill at
the last session was passed through this House to
the tune of God Save the Queen want 1t
passed TO the sweet strains of Hail Columbia.
Democratic applause.)
..Rut the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty not rat
ined at the last session." observed Mr.. Bartholdt.
.aTrue IL was not" replied Mr.. Shackleford. but
our English Secretary Of State wanted it ratified
and because we believed the wishes Of her
rnatesty's representative in the Cabinet would pre-
vail. we opposed the bill"
CAREFUL CONSIDERATION URGED.
Mr Lowering OF Massachusetts also member
of the committee that reported the BILL said that
In the past he had favored the Nicaragua route
because the engineers had reported in its favor
and because until recently he had believed that the
transcontinental railroads using the Panama
route 10 obstruct action. But he had recently sat
isaed himself that the railroads were not behind
the Panama Canal The recent offer Of the Pan
anna company he believed, was made in good
faith The French stockholders were trying to
realize something out OF the wreck OF their
fortunes. He believed that. in view Of the Pan
anna company's offer. it was business TO pause.
take advantage of the present situation and give
the commission which reported in favor OF the
Nicaragua route an opportunity TO revise its con-
clusions He said he would vote for the Morris
amendment and appealed TO members not to make
the fatal error OF committing the government TO
the Nicaragua route Mr.. Loverng's remarks
were literally appauded.
Mr.. Parker. Of New-Jersey, argued that the ques-
ton Of routes should be determined by the Ex-
ecutive. He made comparison OF the two routes,
rising the data compiled by the commission. con-
tending that the Panama had many advantages
over the Nicaragua route. He appealed to the
House to fetter the President by limiting him
TO single line Of action.
THE PANAMA AMENDMENT.
Mr. Norris of Minnesota. who offered the amend
ment yesterday TO give the President the alter
native authority to select the Panama route If 1t
sideraticn of the Panama companys new offer.
followed Mr.. Parker He explained the purpose or
his amendment, which. he said, was not TO impede
the construction of the canal but to insure the
selection Of the best canal-the best to location,
cost of maintenance and operation. durability and
freedom from danger from destruction Before the
Isthmian Commission made its report he did not
be. soe the Panama route feasible. lie thought IL
had been used solely for the purpose OF delay.
But since reading the report he was unable to
reach conclusion 10 which was the better
route. Moreover he did not believe that any man
could read the report and tell which route the
commission would have aelacted had the cost and
conditions been equal In embarking enter
prise that was 10 $9O0 ooooo and perhaps
he considered it that the experts should have
an opportunity consider the offer of the
Panama company. IL the bill passed in the
form In which IL was reported the President could
not entertain the offer of the Panama company.
and under II the President by treaty, might bind
- S1ited States TO construct the Nicaragua