The Press.
London, England, 1856-04-05 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

When it was first proposed to unite the
Atlantic with the Pacific Ocean by means of a
canal through Central America it naturally
became an object of importance to Great Bri-
tain and the United States that neither Power
should possess exclusive control over the line
of communication. This was the origin of
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.
The particular clause of this treaty, which
is now giving rise to so much discussion,
is to the effect that neither Great Britain
nor the United States should "occupy, fortify,
" colonise, or take possession of the coast
"of Mosquito, or any portion of Central
" America, whether in their own right, or in
" right of any protection they might or did
" afford to any people or State in Central
" America." It is this clause which the Ame-
ricans allege us to have violated.

But when we come to examine the instances
they bring forward of this violation, the whole
ground of their complaint shrinks into a very
narrow compass. Our seizure of Greytown,
in right of our protectorate over the Mos-
quitoes, was before the Clayton-Bulwer treaty,
and cannot, therefore, he a violation of it.
While the protectorate itself, as well as our
settlement at Belize—alleged by the Americans
to have been granted us by Spain solely for
the purpose of cutting logwood and mahogany,
and not intended to convey any imperial
rights—is no concern of the United States at
all. Spain is, in reality, the only aggrieved
party; and if Spain is acquiescent, why are the
Americans to bluster? They have neglected
to take offence for more than half a cen-
tury, and it is idle for them to do SO now.
The only real question then at issue is,
whether, when Mr. CLAYTON declared that it
was not the intention of his Government to
include " the islands in the vicinity of Hon-
duras " within the terns of the treaty, he
meant to designate the Bay Islands or not.
Mr. BUCHANAN now declares that he did not,
and contends that by " islands in the vicinity "
was only meant certain small coral reefs near
the coast, that the Bay Islands were never
dependencies of Honduras, and that by occu-
pying them as a British colony Colonel WODE-
HOUSE acted in direct contravention of the
treaty.
But if the words of the treaty are not suffi-
ciently conclusive on this point, one would
imagine that, at all events, Mr. CLAYTON and
Sir H. BULWER must have understood what
was meant by exempting the islands in the
vicinity of Honduras. If, however, they really
cannot agree, there never could be a case more
exactly adapted for arbitration. No angry pas-
sions have yet been aroused ; no inherent
rights are put forward by either party ; no
great principle is involved which neither would
be willing to compromise ; no such case, in
fine, exists as those in which the only appeal
is confessedly to the sword. When an inde-
pendent State is invaded—when subjects rise
against their Sovereign—when great passions
are aroused—then, indeed, arbitration is out
of place; the battle must be fought out. But
will any one contend that the present diffi-
culty is not of the very pettiest description ?
Mr. CASS, forsooth, denies the propriety of
arbitration ; because, he says, no one can tell
us the meaning of the word " occupy" better
than we know it already. Very likely ; but
that is just the reason why it is a case for
arbitration, instead of why it is not. It is just
for such points as these that arbitration was
instituted. We must not confound an arbi-
trator with a judge. The duty of the former
is not to pronounce which of two parties is
originally in the right. To tell us in this case
what the word " occupy " means is precisely
what he has not got to do. His business is to
settle what amount of concession may fairly
be demanded from each of the two litigants.
But this is, of course, a compromise; and
every compromise implies the surrender of
the original point at issue. We don't want an
arbitrator, then, to tell us what " occupy "
means; but we want an arbitrator to get us
out of the scrape. There are two hopelessly
conflicting interpretations of the same word,
and neither party will bear to have their own
overridden. The arbitrator then steps in, and
says, " I don't pretend to say, Gentlemen,
" which of you is in the right, but I should
" recommend you, as ,the fairest way of

►S- AT URDAY,II

•` settling it, to do so and so." Let us hope
the Americans will see the common sense of
this view, and not insist on fighting where
neither material advantages nor moral princi-
ples are at stake.