The Birmingham age-herald., 1914-05-14

| force would not have received 10 votes l 1T there had existed shred of doubt ae l To the Clayton Bulwer treaty having been
 Absolutely got rid Of" it means that American diplomacy of that day stands vlndlcated and acquitted from all asper- sions, fin sharp contrast with the record of repudiation and recreancy now In progress of making and which is adhered to with such pertinacity. as was wit messed in the cross-questioning of MT. Foraker by members of the Senate com mfttee.
 Put to the test of MT. Forakers su- perior knowledge of the facts and his bet ter understanding of what the Senate was driving at when the treaty was up for amendment and ratification, the glar- ing nature of the misinterpretations of that document in it's most vital provisions was disclosed to an extent fairly as- founding Every effort made to weaken the force of his statements only served to further imperil the position held by his questioners.
 Perhaps the most dramatic situation during the two days examination of the Ohio statesman came when Mir, Foraker, turning questioner himself, wanted to know of the committee, would the United States lose the right to use the canal she has built with her own money if she failed to observe the rules laid down for its use?" Evidently the advo- cates of repeal were not prepared for that heart-to-heart way of stating the case, and discreetly reiapsed into silence.
 Again the discomfiture was great when Mir Foraker made 1t quite clear that a paragraph in the treaty construed by the repealers as a rule of conduct really Is a statement of rights nation may acquire' by virtue of observing the requirements of succeeding paragraphs This led up to a colloquy in which MT. Foraxer and Chairman Owen locked horns over the naturalization of the canal. Success fully upholding his contention that 'neu- tralization' refers to war only, and not commerce. the former senator demon strated that Great Britain has no con structural rights in the canal. and that if conditions laid down by the Senate had not been accepted by the British, the United States stood ready to de- nounce the Clayton- -Bulwer treaty with out superseding 1t with a new treaty, if that step had been necessary to give us a freer hand in the canal project.
 A telegram from former Senator Tur- ner confirming MT. Foraker's version or the Senate's action on the Bard amend ment, about which there has been so much conflict of opinion rounded out the two days of enlightening ordeal the es- sential results of which were, in a nut shell, that it had been conclusively shown
 1. That the Hay-Pauncefote treaty was designed to give the United States abso- lute control of the canal.er
 2. That the. treaty would not have been ratified vexcept with tha, understanding. B. That naturalization as contemplated in the treaty has nothing to do with the question of free or equal tolls, but refers to war.
 f. That the Bard amendment was voted down as unnecessary in view of the terms of the treaty.
 D. That the relations between the United States and Great Britain at the time were so cordial and sympathetic and the desirabilty of building the canal so great that neither side deemed it neces- sary to draw up hard and fast agree ment. setting forth the terms in closest detail, such as might now under the changed condition be insisted upon by both parties.
 MT. F'oraker's career in the Senate was signalized by initiative and par ticipation in constructive legislation of great merit and value to the American people, yet 1t is a question if any of his opportunities to render public service in the past has not been eclipsed by the opportunity he has just now grasped to voluntarily contribute his endeavors to the success of the principles of Amer icansm?