New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-12-21
rlpnLrLS EEnu ENGLLSH POLICY

English cavaliers ridcule Mr.. Blainc's Illus
trations from their oon policy. In his letter OF
instructions TO Minister Lowell he contends
that while the prcsumptivc intention of the
| Clayton-Bulwcr Treaty was TO place the two
Powers on plane of perfect equality with
prospect to the canal in practice, this would
"pIoyr utterly Elusive, and would instead sur
"rcndcr it, if not in form, yet IN effect TO the
"control OF Great Britain The United states
Government, being under obligations not 10 Use
lis military fo-ccs on land, could not take any
precautionary measures at either end of the
canal whereas the British navy would bc lett
" free and uurcstraincd.' Mn Blaine reasons
that the interests of Our Government demand
that every provision of that treaty which for
bids it to foriify the mouths OF the canal or in
any way impcaches its "Iyhtlul and long
Established claim to priority on the American
continent should be ahrogatcd. lie finds 10
occasion to disayow an aggressive disposition,
rs the pacific character of our Government is
established "Thc United States" hr asserts,
seeks only to use for the defence of Its own
interests the same fOrccas' and provision which
Her Maicsty's Government SO cucr,cucaly
"cmploys in defence Of the interests of the
British Empire For example, Great Britain
has fortified the strategic points that control the
route to lndia-GIbraltar, Malta and Cyprus in
the Mediterranean, and Alden and Perrin in the
Red Sea, and at the same time holds q coutroll-
ing interest in the Sucz Canal, the purpose
being ITO guard the Eastern possessions, to
secure the most rapid transit for troops and
munitions of war; and to prevent any other
nation having equal facilities in the same d-
rcctiUn.n
This argument, the London journals assume,
wcakens the American case. They take special
pains to deny two things which Mr. Blaine has
not asserted. One is the assumption that Eng
land has fortified the mouths Of the Suez Canal,
and the other is the charge that the exclusive
control Of that waterway has ever been excr-
cieod By their Government. Great Britain,
they state with unnecessary emphasis, has
never even claimed exclusive right 10 control
the canal but has merely taken reasonable pre-
cautions to secure right of way. "On the con-
"trary," cxclaims the Tory press, whose shrll
treble always rises above the cracking basscs in
the chorus of London journalism, Mr. GladstoncB
Government " is content to leave the highway
"to the Eastern Empire at the mercy of for
"eign Powers who are friends to-day but may
abe enemies Tomorrow The moral which
these captious critics unite in pointing is the
interest which the whole world has in the main.
teuanco of the free use of great highways.
This is a sentiment which never fails to COM
mend itself TO the deliberate Judgment of a
nation having the largest and most expensive
naval armament in the world.
For our part, we think that Mr.. Blaine has
strengthened his case by referring to the Suez
Canal. He did not state that England had
either fortified the canal or claimed absolute
control Of it. He named the strategic ap-
proachcs III the Mediterranean and the Red Sea-
and referred to the large military and naval
establishments by which the nearest route to
India was secured. SO long as Great Britain
has its fleet of irunclads, it does not need TO
erect forts at either end of the canal The feet
secures practical control Of that waterway and
rapid transportation OF troops and munitions of
war. At a critical point in the negotiations
which followed the Treaty of san Steiano Lord
Reaconsfeld suddenly dispatched the Scpoy
regiments in troOpships from India to the Med
iteIrancan by way OF the Suez Canal. He did
this in order to remind the Russian Govern
ment that the Indian army was available for
European service, and il hostilities had broken