Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-12-26
RAPID S|DE-STEPP|NG
Democratic Senators and the
Panama Canal Treaty.
SENATOR STONES TALK
C0NTRASTED WITH HIS SPEECH
IN THE CAUCUS.
Mr.. Foraker's Statement as to the
:. Refutation of the Charge of This
Governments Completely.

Some pretty rapid slde-stepping is being
exhibited by democratic senators, with re-
spect to their opposition to the Panama
canal treaty. Seeing the approaching cy-
clone of public dsapproval of opposition to
| the treaty, they are making tracks for
their cyclone cellars. 1t is a question
whether some of them will not be over
come before they get in.
Senator Stone of Missouri, who in the
rude and unpublished vernacular of the un-
conventional west, is known as Gum Shoe
BILL owing to his supposed possession OF
large attributes of caution, is the latest
notable example of those seeking cover. In
an interview Senator Stone d;sclaims demo-
cratic opposition to the canal building,
which the Panama treaty authorizes, and
which cannot be had without some kind of
agreement with the new republic, and in
sists that the democrats are proceeding only
out of an abundance of caution: that they
are scanning the treaty, lest 1T be tine
tured with dishonor;' that if the American
| escutcheon is not soiled, the democrats will
not fight the object intended to be accom-
plished by the treaty-the building of the
canal.
Senator Stones Position.
In Congressional circles this is declared
| to be a plain case of side-stepping on the
part of the senator; a gum-shoe evolution
at that. 1t is recalled that in the caucus
of democratic senator's, reported in the
news columns of The Evening Star just
before the holiday recess, Senator Stone
took an active part. Leader German was
trying to adopt his resolution binding the
democrats of the Senate to unanimous
party action upon any thing agreed upon
in caucus.
1t was clearly understood at that time
that the first use of this formidable ma
chine of legislation would be made In deal
ing with the Panama treaty in the Senate
coming up after the holidays. Leader Cor
man wanted a solid phalanX of democrats;
be knew, as did every one. that opposition
to the Panama treaty, involving essen
tally the construction of the isthnan ca
nal, could not be made party question in
the Senate unless 1t was copper sheathed
and steel-riveted in caucus.
In that caucus Senator Cockrell of Mis-
souri. whom many of his colleagues. hav
Ing served and worked and burned the
midnight oil with him for many years in
the Senate, regard as pretty wise old fell
low, SHE'D at the binding resolution. He
did not hike 1t. Then up sprang Senator
Stone to take issue with his colleague and
to support the resolution. The discussion
was more acrimonious than the reports
have described. Senator Cockrell, in the
end washed his hands OF the whole affair
by not voting at all on the decision.
Senator Stones interview today is be-
lieved to represent the position of a number
of other senators who would like to es-
cape from the accusation of being oppo-
nents of the canal They fall back upon
temporary breastworks behind which they
pause to ask if the treaty was not con-
ceived in iniquity. From that position, re-
publicans say, they will be utterly routed
and forced to stand in the open either rs
professed advocates of the canal or alleged
allies of the transcontinental railway inter-
ests still fighting the canal.
Two notable speeches have been made in
Congress repudiatng the insinuation of
the democrats in both houses that this gov
ernment was. an accessory before the fact
to the Panama revolution and an accom-
plice after the fact. In the Senate Mr..
Foraker of the foreign relations committee
and in the House Chairman Hit of the
foreign affairs committee refuted the
charges of American completely.
Republican senators say that If the demo-
cratic position now rests solely upon the
question of this governments rectitude in
the Panama incident the opponents of the
canal soon will not have leg to stand on.
Senator Foraker's Statement
1.-THE great burden of complaint against
the administration. from the democrats"
said Senator Foraker to a Star reporter to-
day, "is that this government was in po-
sition to act quickly in performing its duty
on the isthmus. under treaty obligations.
ocrats would have the country draw the
Inference that such promptitude was evil
dence of participation in the revolution.
Everybody knew for months before 1t
occurred that revolution was imminent In
Panama. 1 stated in speech in the Senate
December IT. dealing with this subject,
that 1t was matter of common report
everywhere and the administration would
have been blind not to have been prepared
to do it's duty.
II now say that 1t will be shown that
the President had official information of
the imminency of a revolution as long
ago as August, and of course the off,
bounden duty to keep the traffic of the
isthmus open, were able to act promptly
when the blow fell.
Congress will have all this informa-
tion. When it is read, the man who re-
iterateS the insinuationS of completely of
this government will be uttering charges
that are disproven by facts plain on
their face that every one can understand
them.
THE country will not support the dem
ocrats in their criticism of the President
for his prompt action in Panama. Sup
pose he had not done it, and the rebellion
had been followed by all the horrors that
accompany open war, what would have
then been the criticism of our democratic
friends? They would have criticised the
President not for acting precipitately, but
that he had not acted at all; that he had
lost the canal after the United States had
expressed her preference for it, and after
the people of the whole country without
regard to party and without regard to
section had demanded it.
1T was to be prepared for any con-
tingency and to prevent such criticism
that the President took the steps for
which he is being blamed by the minority
in Congress-.