Morning journal and courier., 1880-03-24
ENGLAND AND THE CANAL.

| The plain statement of the Monroe doctrine
 recently made by the President and by the
 House Committee on the Interoceanic Canal
 has caused quite stir in England. The Lon. dons Hines Is in Q state of mind over the mat
 ter. It has discovered that the canal is neces. sary to the development of civilization and the welfare of the world. It has also found out that the Government of the Unitsd States claims to exercise an indefinite suzsrainty from Mexico to Patagonia, ard it solsmnly warns us that this is demand which Europe will not recognize. Having stated it's case it draws it's conclusions, and presents an ultima tum to the effect that we must either cut the canal ourselves or permit M. De Lesseps to proceed. The Pal Mall Gazette speaks of ''the naughty and almost defiant resolution, of the committee, and wants to know if even John Bright would ''vote the Monroe doctrine solid" The London Standard reviews the re. cent history of the matter, including the Burn- side resolution of last year, quotes from the Presidents annual message, and cites the ''oninous" words ef Senator BAyard, who said that the canal, whether 1t took tho Pan - aus or the Nicaragua route, must be under tAC COLbIV1 Ol Jus OOV0EG109nG OI the UQlL0Q States, and that every counsel of wisdom ex- horte us to ''seizs the day" and in time of peace prepare for WET, for it is the sursst mode to avert 1t. The Standard declares that this ''pretsnsion'' must be watched, and If neces- sary be resisted by the British Government because "No more at Panama than st Suez can the 'prspoadsrating influence of another vOu ha a1IoUsd to Iov h. nf England" The London Telegraph, on the other hand, owns that the government of this country has EoMe ground for asserting the Monroe decirine st this time. The Telegraph very correctly remarks ''It Is no exeggera- tien or nisdssoription when President Hayes declares thas the canal would be virtually 8 part of the coast line of the United States , All ths heavy goods traffic between the East ern States and the Pacific States would pass by ths new route. Nor can It be loft out of the question that Mexico may eventually be annexed bo the Union, and that the canal might eRe day become, or nearly bscome, the actual boundary of the republic. No doubt the United States Government cannot prohibit the investment of foreign capital in Central American projects-that is beyond it's power or inclination; but when we consider the pov- erty and weakness Of the States through which all the projected routes run, it is obvious that no European investors would trust their measy to the tender meroies of Nicaragua or Honduras; they would rely on the strong arm of their own Government in case of need. Here is the contingency against which the forecast of Mr. Hayes Is emphaticalIy directed. That Frsnchmen should throw away their money Is not exactly what he apprehends; he only anticipates that the French Government may one day be found looking after it and csrsainly the intervsntions of Franco in Mex leo and Egypt go far to justify these prsoau- ionary fears"
 > It is encouraging 10 find great and infu- enUal English paper like the Telegraph taking so fair and reasonable view of 8 matter which 1t might naturally be expected to look at differently. As the discussion of the canal project and the Monroe doctrine proceeds it can hardly fail to become clear to all intelli- gent persons, both in England and America, that ''lhs American policy" has firm found atien But whether our English cousins be- come convinced of it's justice or not the Mon roe dochins must be maintained even though, as the Loadon Times says, 'It has not, even in its nost restricted shape, been admitted into the law of nations.' It has had adnis- sion enough to bs generally respected for about sixty years, and the only menace to it has bsea when the United States were at war and supposed Co be weak. If 1t needs any more admission It is time that fact WAS known.