The New York herald., 1879-07-03
The Darien Canal and the Monroe
Doctrine.

The interesting despatch from our special
correspondent at Washington, herewith
| given, reflects the sentiments of the Ameri-
can government on the recent declaration
of nj. de Lesseps. The views on this subject
held by the present administration do not
differ from those which have been steadily
maintained by the American government
for more than half century. They have
become so interviewer with American feel
ing and so firmly rooted in American policy
and tradition that there is no sub
! ject on which it is more safe 10
predict the course of our governments
without stopping to consider what politlcai
party is in control at Washington. Party
lines long ago melted into each other ana
| became obliterated ON the question OF ior
eign intermeddling in the affairs OF TINS
continent. The views SO strongly expressed
by the HERALD while the Paris congress
was still celebrating on the choice OF
routes are precisely the views winch are
now expressed in governments circles al
| Washington Indeed, no public man in
this country would risk his reputation for
patriotism by symptoms of weakness or va
cillation on the Monroe doctrine.
The sentiments which M. de Lesseps au-
thorized the HERALD to publish would have
been entirely satisfactory to the American
government and people if he had not
rounded off his declaration with q phrase
respecting the Internationally of money,
which throws cloud of ambiguity over
Il; Tha Tr,f Of u nc 1ao 10
tion published in the HrRALD Of the 1st
inst. seemed like full and unequivocal
recognition Of the American policy. ''M.
de Lesseps wishes to convey to the people
of the United States the assurance that he
is highly satisfied with the resolution
introduced into the Senate by Gen
eral Burnside in relation to the
Panama Canal, because it expresses
exactly his own sentiments on the subject"
Had he stopped here nothing could have
been more satisfactory. But M. de Lesseps
went on to say that she has always been of
the opinion that the canal should be en-
tirely independent Of the control of any
and every government" This is hardly
consistent with the preceding sentence,
since it puts the United States in the same
position as the other governments Of the
world. Now the Burnside resolution as
serts that the United States have o separate
and peculiar interest in that great enter
prise-an interest so strictly American as
to preclude all participation by the govern
ments of Europe. M. de Lesseps went
on to say that ''while neutrality
should be assured the canal can
be constructed with the aid of a
factor which has no nationality--namely,
money" We do not dispute at all that
money has no nationality; but, cosmopoli-
tan as it is, it does not make ventures with
out guarantees, and capital will never flow
into SO important and expensive an under
taking as the interoceanic canal without
the assured protection of some responsible
government or a treaty engagement be-
tween governments which pledge their
mutual faith. The weak and rickety gov
ernment which has territorial jurisdiction
over the route Of the canal can give no
guarantee which capitalists would accept
1t is indisp that some government
protect the vast capital embarked in the
undertaking should afford guarantee,
since otherwise there will be no subscrip-
tions for the shares. The only remaining
question is whether the indispensable
guarantee shall be strictly American or
whether it shall take the form of joint
treaty stipulation between the governments
of Europe and those of America. In spite
of M. de Lesseps' dictum that money is a
factor which has no nationality it is certain
that money will not be risked in so colos-
sal an enterprise without the guarantee of
some strong and responsible government or
the joint guarantee Of governments bound
to each by treaty TO protect the property of
| the canal.
1t is perhaps necessary that there should
be treaty. The only question is what
nations shall be parties to it. The Central
American State, through whose territory
the canal is to be constructed, must be one
OF the contracting parties, since all nations
are bound 10 respect its territorial SOW
ereignty. A mere concession by that Gen.
! trail American State would amount to
nothing, because it is not strong enough
to maintain its own existence, much less
to defend the neutrality of the canal il
there should arise contest for its con-
troll in war between powerful nations.
! The American idea would be satisfied
either by treaty between the Central
American State through whose territory
the canal is to run and the United States,
or by concession of the right Of way to an
our government to enforce the rights of its
citizens and protect their property. There
would be no objection to other Amer
lean governments becoming parties to the
compact but, on the other hand, there