Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1911-02-27

WASHINGTON. Feb 26-After nearly
five hours Of debate. the house Of repre-
sentatives shortly before 10 O'Clock last
night voted overwhelmingly for fortifylng
the Panama canal and appropriated "a
10000 to begin the work, the total cost OF
which has been estimated at S2,OooOoo
The action OF tho house practically settles
the question Of fortificahon, for the senti-
ment in the senate is said 20 be more than
two to one IN favor Of protecting tke 18TH
milan waterway BY seaooast batteries.
The real test came on an amendment pro
posed by Representative TawRey Of Min
nesota, chairman OF the committee on ap-
preparations. The amendment provided that
no part OF the money set aside for fortifl-
cations should be used until the president
had attempted 10 negotiate treaties with
all OF the Leading maritime nations guar
anteeing the neutrality and International
protection OF the canal.
Representative. sherley OF Kentucky at
tackled this amendment and warned mem
bers that II had been introduced for the
sole purpose Of defeating the appropriation.
The Tawney amendment was then voted
down. 100 20 es A melton by Representa-
tive Keifer OF Ohio 70 ntrika outean nfe.'
vision for the fortificatiop OF the canal was
lost, by vote Of iss 10 81 80,
-AnANE
The real interest in the debate seemed
to center in the Tawney Amendment and
the speeches made for and against Il By
Mr. Tawney and Mr.. Sherley.
Mr.. Tawney, a stalwart republican. looked
to the democratic side for sympathy and
applause and received both.
Mr.. Sherley. one OF the democratic lead
ers OF the house, was accorded an ovation
by the republican members. When Il came
to voting the republicans generally sup
ported the fortifioation OF the canal and
the democrats opposed it.
The detection OF about twenty republicans
from the general policy OF fertilization
was offset by q similar detection on the
democratic side in favor OF fertilization
The fertilization OF the canal was pro-
vIded for in the sundry civil bill. but was
considered In the house practically as a
separate measure and after all Of the other
features Of the sundry civil bill had been
disposed Of
The debate began shortly after O'clock
Representative Walter l. smith OF Iowa
led off in favor Of fortification and was
Immediately followed by Representatives
Keifer. who led the forces opposed 70 the
provision. The debate was general from
that time on and no less than twenty
speakers spoke from five to twenty min
utes.
smith Leads In FIsht.
Mr.. smith was generally regarded as
representing the administration in the
fight for fortification. lie cited the var
ious treaties on the subject OF a eadAI
and said the United states had an abso-
lutte right to fortifg.
Others may defend the fortification OF
the canal on what sround they please.
said Mr.. Smith. Some may assert that
We would be justified even in violating a
treaty in time Of emergency in defending
ourselves as best we could. / am here not
TO defend any proposition 90 shocking to
public and private morals.
! Il am here 10 insist that we have the
right to fortify the canal; that Il ia more
than right; that IN fact. we have con
/ tracted to preserve It's neutrality and 10
protect 1t against blockade. This makes
/ II the solemn duty OF THIS people 20 for
I tify the entrance 10 the canal as securely
as any OF the ports OF the country
/ When General keifer had concluded bis
speech against fortifieation he made a
point Of order against the appropriation
Tor fortification. declaring Il was not JUS
titled by existing law.
! Representative Mann % Illinois vas In
[ the chair and overruled the point
Mr.. Mann said that as far as treaty
obligations were concerned the United
States clearly had the right TO police and
protect the canal IN any was IL saw lit
Several democrats VINO spoke and voted
against the fortification said they were In
favor OF fortifying the canal after II was
/ completed. but they did not think thar tn
work had progressed far enough 10 do 80
at this time.
Representative Smith Explained that n
tho Qualifications were not begun and car.
ried on while the present effective con
struction force was on the isthmus tbs
work would cost several million dollars
more
Mr. fawney IN opposlhs fortifieation.
said II such a proposition mad arisen IA
the time the Panama canal was fret con.
templated its construction would never
have been authorised. ne insisted thst
the fortincation ultimately would cost pot
less than s6oOOOOO0
He declared that the intefest on the xs7s.
O0oooo Of construction bones on the SO
Coeoo for fertilization. toEether with the
annual cost OF EoooO0o for maintenance
and operation OF the canal and siO0OeOoo
for the pay Of troops snd the upkeep OF
the fertilization. would bring the annual
total expenditures on the canal up 70 "a.