8 -JT * .
Tbe Conservative *
The defoafc Of
, . . . . .
the populist presi
dential nominee is apparently construed
by the republicans in congress to be a
vote of confidence in republican leader
ship upon all questions and permission
to enact into law any sort of scheme
their fertile and resourceful intellects
may now devise. During the campaign
there was but one subject discussed by
republican orators and newspapers , and
that was the necessity of maintaining
the gold standard and it was the position
the party took upon this question which
made its success possible.
Now republicans in the United States
senate are determinedly advocating the
passing of a shipping subsidy bill , which
proposes to take from the people $9,000-
000 per year for thirty years and give
to already reasonably prosperous ship
owners. The friends of this measure
urge its enactment into law upon the
plea that it is to encourage the building
of an American merchant marine. If
this be the object of the bill , why pay
the bulk of the subsidy to ships already
built and this to rapid trans-Atlantic
liners rather than to the vessels which
really carry a freight cargo ? Then too ,
if it is right and lawful to use public
money to aid private individuals to
build ships , is it not just as legitimate to
use money raised by taxation from all
the people to aid private enterprise to
build wagons , lawn mowers or auto
mobiles ? If wo once admit the principle
is there any end to the application that
may be made of it ? Did any republi
can orator or candidate , in any speech ,
declare that republican success meant
shipping subsidies or other forms of
special privileges to favored interests ?
If not , are they now acting in good
faith ?
The subsidy bill is not the only piece
of legislation favorable to special
interests. The
Oleomargarine.
lower house of
congress has already acted favorably
upon the Grout bill , which places a tax
of ten cents per pound upon oleomar
garine. The tax is so excessive that it
means the crushing out of this
industry if the bill passes the senate
and is permitted by the president to
become a law. The power of taxation ,
contrary to the constitution being used
for the avowed purpose of destroying
an industry. It is an attempt to
enrich the butterinakers at the expense
of the makers of oleomargarine , a rival
food product. Scientific investigation
has established the fact that oleomarga
rine is a healthful and wholesome food
product. It is therefore entitled to the
protection of the law the same as any
other legitimate business. If it is being
dishonestly sold by retailers the law
should be amended to prevent such
deception. Enact stringent laws re
quiring that oleomargarine be sold under
proper nomenclature , but laws prac
tically suppressing its manufacture
should not be passed under the guise of
attempting to prevent'fraud ' in its sole.
TREATY
AMENDED.Vot ° ° f 65 to 17
amended the Hay-
Pauncefote treaty by adopting the Davis
resolution , which , its friends allege ,
permits the United States to fortify the
Nicaragua canal. This resolution was
introduced last spring by the late Sena
tor Davis , the chairman of the com
mittee on foreign affairs. The essential
provisions of the treaty as amended are
as follows , with amendment in italics :
"Article 1. It is agreed that the canal
may be constructed under the auspices
of the government of the United States ,
either directly at its own cost , or by
gift , or loan of money to individuals
or corporations or through subscription
to or purchase of stock or shares , and
that , subject to the provisions of the
present convention , the said government
shall have and enjoy all the rights inci
dent to such construction , as well as the
exclusive right of providing for the
regulation and management of the
canal.
"Article 2. The high contracting
parties desiring to preserve and main
tain the general principle of neutraliza
tion established in article 8 of the
Olayton-Bnlwer convention , adopt , as
the basis of such neutralization , the
following rules , substantially as em
bodied in the conventions between Great
Britain and certain other powers , signed
at Constantinople , Oct. 29 , 1888 , for the
free navigation of the Suez maritime
canal , that is to say :
" 1. The canal shall be free and open ,
in time of war as in time of peace , to
the vessels of commerce and of war of
all nations , on terms of entire equality ,
so that there shall be no discrimination
against any nation or its citizens or
subjects in respect of the conditions or
charges of traffic , or otherwise.
" 2. The canal shall never be block
aded , nor shall any right of war be
exercised nor any act of hostility com
mitted within it.
" 8. Vessels of war of a belligerent
shall not revictual nor take any stores in
the canal , except so far as may be
strictly necessary , and the transit of
such vessels through the canal shall be
effected with the least possible delay ,
in accordance with the regulations in
force , and with only such intermission
as may result from the necessities of the
service. Frizes shall be in all respects
subject to the same rules as vessels of
war of the belligerents.
" 4. No belligerent shall embark or
disembark troops , munitions of war or
warlike materials in the canal except in
case of accidental hindrance of the
transit , and in such case the transit
shall be resumed with all possible dis
patch.
" 6. The provisions of this article
shall apply to waters adjacent to the
canal within three marine miles of either
end. Vessels of war of a belligerent
shall not remain in such waters longer
than twenty-four hours at any one
time , except in case of distress , and in
such case shall depart as soon as possi
ble ; a vessel of war , of a belligerent
shall not depart within twenty-four
hours from the departure of a vessel of
war of the other belligerent.
It is agreed , however , thai none of the
immediate foregoing conditions and stipu
lations in sections numbered 1 , 3 , 3 , 4 and
5 of this article , shall apply to measures
which the United Stales may find it
necessary to take for securing , by its own
forces , the defense of the United Stales
and the maintenance of public order.
" 0. The plant , establishments , build
ings and all works necessary to the con
struction , maintenance and operation of
the canal shall be deemed to be , part
thereof , for the purposes of this conven
tion , and in time of war as in time of
peace , shall enjoy complete immunity
from attack or injury by belligerents
and from acts calculated to impair their
usefulness as part of the canal.
" 7. No fortifications shall be erected
commanding the canal or the waters
adjacent. The United States , however ,
shall be at liberty to maintain such
military police along the canal as may
be necessary to protect it against lawless
ness and disorder. "
The action of the senate in amending
the treaty is a great disappointment to
the administration
Delays Canal.
for the reason that
the treaty as it was written was an
administration measure and for the
additional reason that it is feared the
treaty in its present form will prove
objectionable to Great Britain , and thus
delay for many months , if not indefi
nitely , the construction of the canal. At
any rate it is not probable that Great
Britain will be able to act upon the
amendment before the expiration of this
session of congress so that the definite
consideration of the matter will go over
until next session.
As it now stands the. treaty is rather
inconsistent with itself. The main
Inconsistent. objection urged
against it by
those seeking to amend related to sec
tion 7 of article 2 , which prohibits the
"erection of fortifications commanding
the canal or the waters adjacent. " This
objection is not overcome by the adop
tion of the amendment for the reason
that the amendment precedes section 7 ,
thereby leaving the objectionable
feature still in force. It is possible that
our government may , under the terms
of the amendment , be permitted , in
time of war , to use its fleet at the en
trance of the canal or mine the
bed of it and use its military force to
guard the entire course of the channel.
There is a question , however , whether
all of this would be permissible under
section 7. The present form of the
treaty suggests the suspicion that those
who sought to amend are not so much
opposed to the prohibition of fortifica
tions as they are to the construction of
the canal , and sought to postpone the
matter by delaying the diplomatic ar y
rangements which are considered
necessary for its consummation.
