Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1903-03-18
THE CANAL TREATY.

THE CANAL TREATY.
Without making a single change
the Senate Yesterday voted to ratify the
treaty with the Republic Of Colombia for
the construction of an isthmian canal.
The vote for ratification was 70 in the
affirmative to five in the negative. The
Senate was in executive session when the
result was announced, so that the Sena-
tors themself and few confidential EN-
ployes were present. The five Senator'S
voting in the negative were, Morgan and
Pettus, of Alabama; Teller, of Colorado;
and Daniel aud Martin of Virginia. All
the Senators announced themselves as
gratifed to have the long struggle terml-
mated. but none of them manifested their
appreciation by cheers or handclapping.
On the contrary all Of them seemed more
concerned about getting away from the
chamber than about anything else, SO
that by the time the Senate could ad-
journ, which it did almost Immediately
after the result was announced, most OF
the Senators had left their seats and some
of them had donned their hats and over
coats.
In explanation of his vote Senator
Martin says: az voted against the treaty
because | wanted an American canal
controlled by Americans, thought as
we were going to build canal at cost
of millions of dollars, it should be under
our absolute control. The Panama canal
will not be. The treaty provides that
the canal shall be policed by the Colon
bian Government; that in case of disord-
err we cannot send troops to preserve
peace, except upon the request OF the
Colombian Government; that in a case Ut
great emergency we may land troops to
preserve order; but that as soon as the
Colombian troops arrive ours must re-
tire. The treaty does not provide that
in case we are at war with another coun-
try we shall have the sole right to use
the canal and the right to fortify it as
against the country with which we may
be at war. This is my chief objection to
the treaty. There are many minor rea-
sons, one of which is that the Nicaraguan
route is the best in my opinion, but the
first reason advanced was sufficient.
Senator Daniel shared Senator Martins
views.
Senator Daniel opposed the treaty.
His speech was an arraignment Of the
republican policy in pressing the treaty
with what he asserted was undue haste.
He referred TO the enormous expenditure
that would be required to construct the
canal, and charged recklessness in
rushing into such an enterprise, as he
declared was being done.
After Senator Daniel had closed several
other Senators on both sides of the cham
Der made fifteen minute speeches for and
against the treaty. Among those who
spoke against it was Senator German,
who devoted himself especially to the
necessity for adequate defense of the
canal, which, he said, could be assured
only by the United States. He asserted
that Senators were not thinking for
themselves, but were following blindly
in the lead of the Secretary of State.
Indeed, he declared that practically sur
rendering their own afiices in order to
maintain a reputation far party ale
glance.
The disposal of the Panama canal
treaty leaves the Senate face to face
with the Cuban reciprocity treaty, and
the plan is now to dispose of this conyen-
ton in short order. The adoption of the
amendment making Unnecessary for Con-
gress to approve the treaty before it be-
comes effective has made great change
in the programme in the Senate and in
fact has practically removed all opposi-
ton to to its ratification.