died.

Secretary Hay was very much disappointed, but he at once set to
work to negotiate such a treaty as would go through the Senate
without amendment and such a one as Great Britain would consent
to. He wrote to a number of Senators, members of the committee,
I suppose, asking for suggestions as to just what the Senate would
agree to. I was not at that time chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Relations, but I was very deeply interested in the subject
and had given it considerable study and thought. Secretary Hay
wrote me, and I replied at length, giving my views both as to the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and what I thought should be inserted in the
new treaty.

Mr. Hay promptly renewed negotiations, which resulted in what is
known as the second Hay-Pauncefote Treaty. After a good deal of
effort this agreement was ratified without amendment. This act
signalized the beginning of my service as chairman of the Committee
on Foreign Relations.

The principal contention arose over the subject of fortifications,
a question that is still a mooted one. It occurs to me that the
proper reasoning is this--and I believe I took the same position
when the treaty was under consideration:

The first and second Hay-Pauncefote treaties must be construed
together; the first Hay-Pauncefote Treaty contained a prohibition
against fortification; the second Hay-Pauncefote Treaty neither
prohibited nor in terms agreed to fortifications, but was silent
on the subject; therefore, the legal construction would be that
Great Britain had receded from the position that the canal should
not be fortified. In any event, we will go ahead and fortify the
canal, and do with it whatever we please, regardless of any of the
nations of the world.

That obstacle having been finally removed, the question which next
arose was: What route should be selected? The selection of the
route was not a subject over which the Foreign Relations Committee
had jurisdiction; but after the Panama route was decided on, it
became necessary to negotiate with Colombia, the owner of that
route, for the right of way for the canal. Secretary Hay promptly
proceeded with the negotiation, as it was his duty to do, under
the Spooner Act, and on January 3, 1903, submitted the treaty to
the Senate for its Constitutional action thereon. Senator Morgan
and others led the fight against it; but a vote was taken, and the
treaty was ordered favorably reported. On February 12, 1903,