The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1880-01-11
THE CANAL.
What Minister Dichman Has
to Say About 1t,

IN IQaE lustIum6UL lUE hltdluluH eA0
objects for which it was executed, and
its speculation features, and adds:
Nor would the instrument be made |
acceptable by any amendments or
notifications which could be intro
duced. The insuperable objection
that it was a mere contract or under
standing between the Colombian
government and private company
would always remain" Dichman,
in the course of the same dispatch,
which is 10 response to a request from
the department for his views on the
subject, gays: "As l have already ex-
planned, the political condition OF
this republic is not OF such nature
as to attract the investment OF many
millions o. dollars in such an enter
prise. Even the existence of the
government and union of these
states ia anything but assured,
and the ever present danger
Iof the secession OF Il Q
State of Panama makes It
exceedingly improbable that suy.
body can De found to invest his money
in an undertaking which. without the
support and guaranty of the United
States, might probably be made
bone of contention between the differ
ent political factions of this county.
Nor is IL to be supposed that any
European government would give its
moral CT materisl support to
en- ent rpTise of such magnitude
on this continent, without frat
coming to an understanding with the
government Of the United States.
Precedent for an international under
standing concerning the improve
ment of any channel OF commerce, OF
which more than one nation Is
interested, are not wanting. | beg to
mention only the abolition Of the
Sound and the Scheldt dues, the Mont
Censis and st. GothsId tunnels, the
Improvement of the navigation OF the
Lower Danube and the erection end
management Of the light house al
Cape Spaitel. 1t is more than pro
bable that after the construction o.
the inier-oceanic canal, the COM
MERGE from which tolls will have tc
be collected will belong principally tc
the United States and Great Britain
Therefore, toe questions IS 10 cos
and management of this enterprise
are of great Importance to the United
States, and q guaranty for its security
against domestic and foreign dangers
will ultimately have to be assumed,
as a heavy responsibility by the
United States government, and 1t II
only right that, 10 determining the
conditions under which this work
shall be undertaken, the government
of the United States should be
consulted and should have tina
control over its management
and use, which is demanded by the
commerclsl and political interests o
our country, the proximity of the
canal to or ports and It's position o.
the Amer lean continent.
IN q subsequent dispatch. dated
October II, 1879. Minister Dichman
writes to Secretary EVsrls as follows:
have taken occasion in my preSiou
dispatches on this subject tn bring to
your notice the reason why, in my
iopinion, the construction of the
canal under the contract now hill by
DeLesseps should bs discouraged by
the United Ststes. In addition 10
TO these reasons permit me to state
that the organization Of the company
to be formed by Del e5seps. although
81 rrtll bc
French in everything that affects any
question except tine contribution oil
money, for the company must have a
domi3Ils somewhere and mus. bs
subject to the jurisdiction OF some
government. A canal constructed
by such g company will be nothing
less than the planting OF French
colony on the Isthmus. He calls
attention to the fact that as yet but
one nation, the United States,
has guaranteed Colombia sovereignty
and neutrality, as vel as the RICH! Of
property on the isthmus; and proceeds
to argue that in the event OF serious
differences arising between the caoal
company and the Colombian govern
ment, the intervention of tie goverG-
ment of the Company would doubtless
be invokad, in which case says Minis
ter DichmsD, at is more thal prob
able the good Offices OF the govern
ment of the United States would have
to be invoked by the government OF
iC.llmbis, and we should thus
be in fair Way of HAVING
the Egyptian question on this
continent, while every consideration
of reason and policy would dictate
that it should be avoided by making
the construction OF the canal under
the present contract impossible"
Minister Dichman also takes the
ground that irrespective of the politi.
Cal questions involved, the commerce.
OF the United States would be a. a
disadvantage if the management OF
the cana! should be in the hands of a
European company. In tAe course
OF his remarks on this proposition. he
points out that all the differ
ences arising between such q
canal company and the shipping
using the canal would hive to be
adjudlcAted either by the courts
at Bugots, or by the courts in Europe,
and that IN either csse the differences
arising from distance alone would
work practical denial of justice for
the American shop owners, or mas tsrs
In conclusion he writes that the more
this subject of the construction of the
inter-oceanic canal is examined, the
more it becomes apparent that the
government of the United States can
not view with indifference the con-
struction and management thereof by
q European government, or by COM
psny subject to the jurisdiction OF
such government. The published |
correspondence does not include any
letters from the state department on |
the subject of the inter-oceanic canal.
Mexican Troubles.