Would Have Senate End Canal Treaties.

New York Times 100 years ago today, April 22, 1913:
Chamberlain Suggests Abrogating Hay-Pauncefote and Clayton-BuIwer Compacts.
CUT FREE FROM BRITAIN
O'Gorman Says Resolution Would Pass Senate — Opposition from Wilson Expected.
Special to The New York Times.
    WASHINGTON, April 21.— Senator Chamberlain of Oregon, who was prominent in the fight last Summer for free passage through the Panama Canal of American coastwise shipping, to-day introduced a joint resolution declaring the United States "free and exonerated from each and all of the stipulations" of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty and of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which it superseded. The resolution, if passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, would give the United States absolute control over the Panama Canal, even to the extent of discriminating between foreign powers as to the rates charged their ships.
    Senator Chamberlain explained that, while the Clayton-Bulwer treaty had been superseded by the existing Hay-Pauncefote treaty, he included it in his resolution for abrogation upon the theory that, were the Hay-Pauncefote treaty to be abrogated alone, Great Britain might rebase her claims upon the old treaty, with the contention that the abrogation of its successor still left it in force.

Will Pass, Says O'Gorman.
    While most Senators showed reserve this afternoon in discussing the resolution, it evidently created lively interest. Senator Bacon of Georgia, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, to which the resolution was referred without debate, assured Mr. Chamberlain that the resolution would receive the committee's earnest consideration. Senator O'Gorman, a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations and Chairman of the Committee on Interoceanic Canals, said he believed the resolution would pass the Senate by a very wide margin.
    Mr. Chamberlain does not seem so confident. He claims some support for the resolution, but the most he seems to expert from the Committee on Foreign Relations is that, instead of pigeonholing his measure, the committee will make an adverse report, thus giving occasion for its consideration on the floor.
    Although Mr. Chamberlain emphatically denies it, the impression prevails that the introduction of a resolution abrogating the treaties is an abandonment of the contention that the free passage of American ships through the canal is permitted by the treaties. That contention was earnestly presented by Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. O'Gorman and others last Summer. This afternoon Mr. Chamberlain insisted that the object of the resolution was not to destroy treaties that properly stand in the way of American concessions, but to put an end to protests from Great Britain.
    President Wilson at present is conducting negotiations looking to a friendly settlement of the dispute with Great Britain, and there is reason to believe that he would consider the adoption of the resolution a misfortune. It is pointed out in some quarters that the treaty is so drawn that it cannot be abrogated, but only violated, as there is no provision for terminating it, and Great Britain already has given her consideration, which cannot be returned. Any abrupt termination, therefore, it is argued, would mean practically a decision to reap the fruits of the agreement without paying for the privilege.

Concrete Form of Opposition.
    "I am glad," said Mr. O'Gorman, "that Mr. Chamberlain introduced the resolution. It is a concrete presentation of what I suggested in my speech last Summer, that if the English contention is right, which I deny, the treaty ought to be abrogated at once. No treaty-making agency has the power or the right to will away or prejudice the sovereignty of a people. The proper course would be to direct the President to take up negotiations looking to the abrogation or modification of the treaty. This would leave England just where she ought to be — with no part in our domestic affairs."
    Three Panama Canal measures were introduced to-day by Representative Moore of Pennsylvania. One, a resolution, would direct the Secretary of State to confer with Great Britain and other nations as to their willingness to share the expense of constructing and maintaining the canal if it were opened to all on equal terms. Two bills propose a Panama Canal Trade Commission, and to repeal the provisions of the Panama Canal act admitting free of duty foreign materials that enter into the construction or equipment of ships.