The sun., 1903-12-17

Tibetan winter.
Will Democratic Senators Oppose the
Panama Treaty?
Democratic leaders will make grave
tactical mistake if they try to array their
party in the Senate against the Panama
treaty. The American people will no
more sanction in 1904 rejection Of the
long-sought opportunity to cut an inter-
oceanic waterway by the shortest and
cheapest route than they sanctioned
in 1900 the preposterous demand for a
remuneration of the Philippines.
The plan of the opponents Of the
treaty was revealed in the caucus Of
the minority Senators that was held on
Tuesday, Dec. is. The caucus voted
that hereafter a resolution passed by
two-thirds Of the Senators present and
voting thereon shall be binding upon
all Senators taking part.
It is understood that Senator CoCKRELL
of Missouri did not vote on the new rule
and will not be bound by it. We find
it hard to believe that Senator NEW
LANDS of Nevada, acquainted as he is
with the wishes of his constituents,
and of the whole population OF our
Pacific States, will participate in a move
ment detrimental to their vital interests.
That Senator MORGAN of Alabama should
view with disapproval any canal treaty
that does not provide for the selection
of the Nicaragua route is to be expected,
but we do not see how Senators from
Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi can
reconcile a similar course with their
duty to the Gulf States. That both OF
the Senators from Florida have hitherto
favored the ratification Of the Panama
treaty is we'll known, and, if they per-
init themselves to be forced by caucus
to act against their judgment they are
likely to hear from their respective
State Legislatures.
The more thoroughly the circumstances
preceding and attending the recent revo-
luton on the Isthmus are discussed the
palmer will it become that, had the Presi-
dent failed promptly to recognize the
Republic of Panama, and to accept the
canal treaty which the Government of
the new State offered We should pres
emily have been involved in complica-
tions Of the gravest character. Not only
bound to maintain peace and order, have
been made the scene of devastation and
massacre, but the French Republic might
have been called upon by the Canal COM
pany to protect its franchise and prop
ertv, which would have been threatened
with destruction. 1t is now we'll known
that the rejection of the Hay-Herran
treaty was simply the first move in a
game the ultimate purpose Of which
was the confiscation of the French Com
panys assets in 1904 on the plea that it's
franchise would then have lapsed, the
last extension, for which the corporation
paid million dollars in gold, not having
been granted in constitutional way. No
French Government could live an hour if
it tried to withstand the tumultuous popu-
lar demand that the army and navy Of
France should be employed to defend her
citizens against such an act of spoliation
Yet we, on our part, should have been
constrained, not only by the Monroe
Doctrine, but by the specific obligations
contracted in 1s46 to object to any per-
manent occupation Of Isthmian territory
by French force. 1t is pretty certain
that Germany would have offered to CO.
operate with France in order to make an
end of the Monroe Doctrine, and it is at
least doubtful whether England would
have entered the lists on our behalf.
This was no visionary danger that we
escaped through our recognition of the
Republic of Panama, and our negotiation
of treaty with its representatives. The
confiscation of the French company's
franchise was resolved upon by the
Bogota politicians, and stern interposi-
ton on the part of France would prob
ably have followed. The French Repub-
lie, indeed, would have had hundred
times better reason for intervening on
the Isthmus than NAPOLEON III. had for
interfering with Mexico forty years ago.
Democratic Senators will be guilty of a
serious blrnder if, on the eve of Presi-
dental campaign, they put their party
in wrong position with reference to this
Panama affair.