| Show LODGE ON TREATY I SENATOR MAKES A STATEMENT ABOUT THE COMPACT Explains the Senate Amendments and Shows That They Were Not Dictated by Hostility Washington Dec 21Senator Lodge who hoij charge of the IlayPaunccfoto treaty In tho Senate toduy made the following fol-lowing statement Tho Senate amendments were not dictated dic-tated by hostility toward England and I silll less wore they In any degree a reduction re-duction upon the Secretary of State Tho auictulnicntn were made by the Senate solely because in KB opinion they wore necessary for tho Interest of the United SLate and tilt avoidance of any question as to Iho control of the canal and consequently conse-quently for tho sake of peaceful and liar monloun drallngs with the rest of the world on that subject In tho future Tho first amendment Is a simple declaration I de-claration that the ClaytonBulwer treaty I ceases to cxlut smd IH sunerceded by tho IlayPauncofoto treaty The object of tho latter waa to remove the former as an obstacle to the construction of tho Jsth mlnn canal Some good Judges thought tho llayPauncefolc treaty did this completely com-pletely as It stood Others believed that certain portions oC the ClnylonBulwer I treaty still remained In force To allow I iMs duubl to continue would have been a j Kravo mistake Tho American people desired de-sired to bo rid of tho ClaylonBuhver treat finally and beyond question Under article IV the IlayPaunccfotc treaty 1 as It Blood wo were clcdrly bound If engaged in war to permit a lioaCllu fieot 1C It succeeded In petting Inside the thrcemllo zone to pnss unmolested through tho canal This may or may not bo a practical question and It Is of no consequence whether It la I or not It Is a solemn promise to permit a hostile Sleet to uso the canal That promise we either intended to keep as wo made It or knowing know-ing that under the stress of war we should break it H wo meant to keep it then It was a promise no nation ought to make If wo knew that we should not keep It in lime of war then It was only honest and fair to relieve ourselves of tho obligation In the treaty Itself This was the plir poao of the second or Davis amendment which entirely disposes of any such promise prom-ise and which follows exactly In principle I princi-ple anti almost exactly In word article X of the Suez convention which reserved similar rights to Turkey whoso Interest in tho Suez canal IH trivial compared to I ours In that proposed In Nicaragua Time third amendment strikes out ar ticlo UJf by which we engaged to Invite I other nutions to adhere to tho treaty and thereby become parlies to It Had there been no ClaytonRulwr treaty wo should lavo negotiated with no QUO except Costa Rica and Nicaragua is to building tho I canal With England owing to tho Clay ionI3iihver treaty v > o wcro obliged to treat but as wo expect Europe to keep out of this hemisphere it isecmcd to tho Senaio unwise however excellent and liberal the hilonilnn to invite European nations to share In an American treaty and thus give them the right to meddle In American affairs at any pointy point-y e desire to dispose of the Clayton Uulwor treaty in tho most friendly way possible Wo arc most averse to any other disposition of it England does not Intend to go to war to prevent our build Ins the canal and It It IH physically pos slblc to build It we mean lit any event to do so Under these circumstances wo are very clear thai It Is as much tot Eng lands Interest as for ours to accept the new propositions In tho friendly spirit In which they arc offered and thus end a controversy over a wornout treaty which is only a stumbling block to both I nations U Is not to be doubted that the English MinlHtcn whose ability experience and reputation are Itnowu to all the world will duly weigh all those considerations and lightly comprehend tho purpose of tho Sonata amendments and time spirit In which they are presented r |
