THE INTEROCEANIC CANAL PROBLEM 171 



(1) A canal neutralized to the use of the world's com- 



merce by a joint guarantee of all nations, and 



(2) A national waterway belonging to the United States, 



and over which it exercises full control. 



The sudden presentation of this issue in so positive a form 

 brought forth many virulent criticisms by the more radical 

 advocates of American exclusiveness in a canal policy. The 

 apparent change in the President's sentiments from 1898 to 

 1900 on the subject of canal equalization gave to the oppo- 

 nents of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty the handle of a whip 

 wherewith to flay the administration. It was inevitable that 

 the "canal question" should develop a political aspect, and 

 before the close of the session it began to accommodate 

 itself to party needs. The Republican supporters of the 

 President were openly accused of seeking to perpetuate a 

 vicious anti-American compact. Railroad interests, the 

 Trusts, and a snobbish catering to British policies were 

 alleged as the causes. In the House, the Hepburn Bill, 

 which wholly ignored the Clay ton-Bui wer treaty, and was in 

 direct opposition to the principles of the agreement awaiting 

 confirmation in the Senate, was passed by a large majority of 

 votes to the discredit of American methods of negotiation 

 with foreign nations. 



The 1st Session of the 51st Congress came to a hurried 

 adjournment in early June without having ratified the 

 Hay-Pauncefote treaty or even having acted upon the Davis 

 amendment; and the matter was postponed to the following 

 December. On account of the delay, the period for ratifi- 

 cation of the treaty was extended by mutual agreement to 

 March 4, 1901. 



Both party platforms, adopted in the National Conventions 

 immediately after the adjournment of Congress, endorsed the 

 policy of absolute and exclusive American control of the 

 canal. The acceptance of such a plank in the Republican 

 platform at Philadelphia could only be regarded as a party 

 expression of disapproval of the position assumed by the 

 executive toward a neutralized waterway connecting the 

 oceans. This protest from the party, which had been presum- 



