Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1911-01-09
Former Senator Tells of Con-
ference With Late Secretary
Hay When Treaty With Great
Britain Was Pending,
REVIEWS ACT OF SENATE
DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS
Declares No One Would Doubt
Right of United States to Pro-
tect Property Costing Hun
dredS of Millions.
Iny Morning Journal special Leased WIrel


10y Morning journal Special Leased wIrel
Washington, Jen S.--A contribu-
ton designed to clarity the confused
situation that has arisen over the
the Panama canal was submitted to-
day by Former Senator Foraker of
Ohio to President Taft who made II
public.
Throughout the period in which
the Hay Pauncefort treaty was nego-
tiated and ratified Senator Foraker
advised with John Hay, then secre-
tary of state. and made many of the
suggestions that were incorporated
,lto the treaty preserving to this gov
ernment the right to take such means
as it deemed necessary to protect the
canal and the shipping without spe-
officially authorizing fortiTications.
Senator Foraker's lette. TO Presl-
dent Taft reviews the acts of the sem
ate In connection with the treaty maxi
ing with England laws passed. sub
seuuently to the ratification of Me ex-
listing Hay -Pauncefort treaty. The
letter tells of the ratification of q
treaty by the senate December 20,
1900, which was rejected by the Bril-
tish government.
When it was presented in the sem
ate II contained a provision against
fortfication and there was much
criticism of the secretary because of
that tacts
The convention was amended in ac-
cordance with public sentiment and
after Great Britain's rejection of 1t,
harsh and severe criticisms or Mr..
Hay were renewed.
Mr.. Hay was greatly disturbed by
the attitude of newspapers and Sem
ator Foraker said he received a call
from him one Sunday morning and
he seemed distressed and discourage
ed"
He showed Senator Foraker letter
from Lord Lansdowne indicating that
II would not be worth while to make
an effort to- negotiate another canal
treaty unless provision was made
therein for the settlement of the
pending treaty between the United
States and Canada.
Mr. Hay regarded such n treaty as
impossible and thought 1t barred fur
ther progress with respect to the ca
nal.
Drifting into general discussion OF
the whole subject Senator Foraker
and Secretary Hay, it appears agreed
that II would be idle to undertake to
secure the ratification of any treaty
that flatly prohibited fortification by
the United States or involved this
government in any obligation to con-
suit any other power regarding pro-
lection of its own property. Senator
Foraker suggested several changes
from the convention which had been
rejected by Great Britain, among
them new matter and some transpo-
sitions that would soften the effect.
They included the following:
"The canal shall never be blockad-
ed nor shall any right of war be exer
cised. nor any act Of hostility be COM
mitted within 1t. The United States,
however. shall be at liberty to main
tain such military police along the ca
nal as may be necessary to protect
against lawlessness and disorder
Senator Foraker said that he mark
ed these changes in copy of the first
Hay y-Pauncefort treaty which was
handed to him by Mr.. Hay, who took
II away with him and in the fall OF
the same year, on August 49, 1901,
wrote 20 the senator In confidence
that he hoped to conclude new
treaty with England In line with "all
the suggestions which you kindly
made to me-"
That treaty was negotiated and sent
10 the senate in December 1901, and
was ratified without amendment and
IN due time was ratified by Great
Britain and became binding agree
ment In his letter to the president
Senator Foraker shows that he had
no doubt that the United States was
reserving the right to fortify the ca
nal
From the treaty provision for the
establishment Of a military force on
the canal. Senator Foraker saws 1t
would have a right to do whatever
was necessary in the way in intrench-
Ing itself. 'or in palmer words. forti-
flying itself against attacks"
He adds that the idea was. that
with their canal constructed at a
cost Of OF hundreds of millions of dol
lars. "no one would ever question our
right to do whatever might be nee
essary in our judgment to uphold our
authority and protect our property
and commercial rights"
Quoting from the Spooner law
providing for the construction of the
canal and from the treaty with Pan
ANA, Senator Foraker shows II TO
have been set forth clearly that Il
was the Intention OF the United States
10 protect the canals and harbors.
the Panama treaty uses the words
the United States shall have the
rignt 10 establish Qualifications
Vie cites the fact that the British
government did not raise any ques-
,ions rs to the "Spooner law or to the
Ianama treaty being In contraven-
non OF the Hay -Pauncefote treaty He
Snd that he supposed. and he thought
"ther senators were OF the same opin-
ION that the British government rec
usn'zed that when the second Hay
uuncefote treaty was ratified. II was
matter left wholly to the discretion
w the United States ITO determine to
What extent we would employ mill