Imperial Valley press., 1914-04-10

L IClOA . al NIL lU, lJI4
which might arise and in this case
was certain to arise.
"This treaty was abrogated and a
substitute was proposed in the form,
of the first -Pauncefote treaty,
which, following too closely the terms
Of the Suez Canal treaty, contained
provisions" said Senator Lodge,
(which the Senate of the United
States very properly declined to ac-
cept. The gravest error was a repe.
tition of one of the mistakes of the
Clayton -Bulwer treaty in inviting
the nations of Europe to join with
US in guaranteeing the neutrality of
the canal. Such provision was not
only an abandonment of the Monroe
doctrine, but was even worse. 1t dis
regarded entirely our national policy
of preventing interference by Europe
in American affairs"
The Senate inserted specific pro-
vision that the new treaty should
completely supersede the Clayton
Bulwer treaty, and this, said Sena-
tor Lodge, was the direct cause of
England's refusal to accept the Sen
ate's amendments to the treaty. The
second Hay-Pauncefote treaty con-
tanned all the Senate amendments,
said Senator Lodge. This is the
treaty now i'm force
81 took the view then," said Sen
ator Lodge, "that under the terms of
the treaty of November 10, 1901, the
United States was at liberty to ex-
empt its own vessels of commerce
from the payment of tolls, if it saw
fit to do so, and / voted against the
Bard amendment, which made this
right explicit, because thought it
needless. Of the seventy senators
who actually voted upon the Bard
amendment, only eleven are members
of the Senate now-three Democrats
and eight Republicans. The votes in
favor of the Bard amendment num-
bered 27-8 Republicans and 10 Dem
ocrats-who showed by their votes
that they wished to be able to sub
sidize American coastwise vessels
passing through the canal and
thought that the treaty as it stood
did not assure them this opportu-
nifty"
The term i" all nations" in the
Hay-Pauncefote treaty, does not in
clude the United States, in the opin
ion of Senator Lodge.
"My reasons for taking this view,
he said, "are that this article in the
Hay-Pauncefote treaty is contract
with Great Britain and as embodied
in the treaty with Panama becomes
contract with all the world by
which the builder and owner of the
canal fixes the terms upon which it
grants the use of the canal to all
other nations. AS Mr. Olney in his
argument has pointed out, the treaty
in this respect was needed for that
purpose only, because it was not
necessary to fix the terms upon whic'i
the United States and it's citizens
could use the canal, inasmuch as its
use by the citizens of the United
TWO LEAD LODGE ;. :. ;. 49,.
States, without tolls or otherwise,
as the United States might deter
mine, was necessary incident of
the ownership of the canal l also
agree with Mr.. Olney in the propo-
sition in which he states in a man
ner beyond improvement that it can
not reasonably be argued that, in
fixing the terms for use of its canal
by customers, the United States
! looked upon itself as one of the GUS
TONER'S
Senator Lodge took the view that
the word DECENTRALIZATION" as used in
the treaty, referred to conditions of
hostility and cannot possibly be
stretched to refer to the conditions
under which commercial vassels shall
use the canal. While holding these
views, Senator Lodge concluded that
"in the larger consideration of our
position among the nations of the
earth / think it would be a great
mistake, with divided public opin-
ion at home, to insist upon our own
Interpretation of the treaty-an In
depreciation of the treaty which the