Arizona republican. [volume] (Phoenix, Ariz.) 1890-1930, 1911-02-26
Fertilization Appropriation
Passed Overwhelmingly
PARTY LINES WERE TWISTED.
Bill Carries 100000 With
Which to Begin Work at
Once, for Completion of
Which 100000 More
Will Be Needed.

Washington, Feb. 25.-After nearly.
five hours of debate, the house. sbortI,.
before l O'Clock tonight voted over
whelmingly in favor of fortifvina tho
Panama canal and appropriated e. ana -
600 to begin the work. the cost or which
Is estimated at ST., 900. The action
of the house practically settles M
question of Qualifications. for tho senti-
neht In the senate is said 10 be more
thdh three To one in favor OF protect
ing the isthmian waterway.
Inc real test came on an amendment
proposed by Representative Tawnev
chairman Of the committee on appro-
priations. The amendment provide,I
that no part of the money set aside for
forufications should be used until the
president had attempted To negotiate
treaties with all the leading maritime
nations guaranteeing the neutrality and
international protection of the canal
Mr.. Shirley of Kentucky attacked
this amendment and warned members
tnat 1t had been introduced for the sole
purpose Of defeating the appropriations.
The Tawney amendment then was
voted down, 100 to SO.
\ motion by Mr. Keifer Of Ohio Ia
strike out all provision for the forth
vacation Of the canal was lost bv a vote
Of 135 TO 81.
The real interest in the debate
seemed TO center on the Tawuev
amendment, and sreeches were made
for and against it by Mr. Tawney and
Mr.. Shirley. Mr. Tawney. stalwart
republican. looked to the democrats for
sympathy and applause and received
both
Mr. Shirley. one Of the democratic
leaders Of the house. was accorded an
ovation by the republican members.
When it came to voting, the republicans
generally supported the fortification of
the canal and the democrats opposed il. |
me detection of about twenty republi- |
cans from the general policy of forti- |
fcation was offset by a similar defec- |
ton on the part Of the democratic side |
In favor of fortifIcation. The fortifi- |
cation of the canal was provided for in |
the sundry civil bill but was considered |
IN the house as a separate measure and !
after all the other features of the |
sundry civil bill had been disposed Of.
Representative smith Of Iowa led off |
the debate in favor Of fertilization and |
was followed by Mr. Keller. who led |
the forces opposed to the provision. No
less than twenty members spoke from
i've TO twenty minutes. NJ. Smith
was generally regarded as representing
the administration in the fight for for
tlilcatlon He cited various treaties on
the subject of the canal.
Il am here to insist that we have
the right 10 fortifv the canal" he said.
That it is more than a right: that. in
fact, we have contracted to preserve its
neutrality and to protect it against
blockade. This makes it the sole duty
Of this people to fortify the entrance to
the canal as securely as any of the
ports of the country"
When Mr.. Keifcr had concluded his
speech against fertilization lie made a
point of order against the apWopria-
ton for fortification, declaring that it
was not justified by existing law.
Mr. Mann of Illinois was in the chair
and overruled the point. Mr. Mann
said that as far as treaty obligations
were concerned the United states had
the right to police and protect the ca
nal in any way ii saw fit. Several
democrats who spoke and voted against
he fertilization said they were infavor
IF certifying the canal after it was
completed. but they did not think that
he work had progressed far enough To
10 SO at this time.
Representative Smith explained that
II the Qualifications were not begun
and carried on while the present con- Ii
struction force was on the isthmus, III
the work would cost several million N
dollars more Ip
Mr.. Tawney. i'm opposition to forth
'ication. said that if such a PROPOSE
ion had arisen at the time the Pan
INA canal was first contemplated its
would never have been
authorized. He insisted that the forti-
ication ultimately would cost not
ess than $4,000. goo He declared that
he interest on $S75.6OO.OO0 of con-
;trIction bonds and on the $50. coo. 900
or fertilization, together with the an
rual cost of $7.0O0.000 for main
enance and operation of the canal
md S1O.000.0O0 for the pay of troops
md the up-keep of the Qualifications II
would bring the annual total expendi-
ures on the canal ~ To $50 900 600
rhe estimated revenue, he said. is IN
MY 100000 a year, leaving the net
ost to the United States at $26. 600
O0 a year IN
After the Tawney amendment and TX!
he Keifer motion to strike out had y
een defeated. another motion was =