Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1881-12-31
AGAINST THEPAH-
ANA CANAL.
A Vigorous, If Not Convincing
Statement by Mr.. WhltInOrne.
pocial % the olnclnnstl Com nsrc.nl.l


WASHINGTON, December %
Congressman Whitthorne, of Tennes
see, was a member Of the Inter
Oceanic Canal Committee Of the
House in the last Congress, and Wig
orously opposed all schemes for the
construction Of either a canal or a
ship railway, on the ground that any
inter oceanic ship transit would be
detrimental to the commercial and
political interests of the United States.
A correspondent who met Representa-
tive Whitthorne yesterday asked:
Are you still opposed to an irter-
oceanic canal?"
Certainly l am. The history Of
the world records that the two spots
on the earth's surface on which, and
for the possession or control of which
the fercest struggles have been made,
and the most blood has been shed. are
the Straits Of Gibraltar and the Dar-
danelles. Why should the United
States encourage other conflicts of the
same sort by the digging of an ocean
canal to draw the fleets and nayies of
Europe to our shores, and to impose
upon us the necessity of maintaining
IN both oceans vast naval armaments
to protect our Pacific trade, as we'll as
the immense commerce of the Missis-
sippi aud its tributaries, which seeks
an outlet through the Cult of Mexico.
II our own citizens should build such
a canal, the United States would be
compelled to build forts and sustain
navies for its defense. In case of war
a guarantee of neutrality would
amount to nothing, unless we had the
physical strength to eniore it. d"
Ought the United States to allow
the canal to be built and controlled by
any foreign interests ?"
No, of course not
How could it be prevented ?"
"Oh, | think there would be no diff
fculty. We must iusis-, if need be,
upon the abrOgation OF the Clayton
Bulwer treaty, on the ground that we
have found IL inconsistent with our
interests and with our obligations un-
der the treaty Of 1916 with New
Grenada"
But suppose DeLesseps should pay
no attention to hint like that, and
should keep on digging?"
why, then we ought to inform the
Colombian Government that we have
determined to enforce our treaty obi
cations, and that, in our opinion, the
presence of such overshadowing for.
eign influences and interests in that
country was considered a menace to
American interests. Then we might
dispatch our war vessels, if we had
any, to watch the operations of the
Frer Gilman and look after our inter
ests in that quarter. It Is my candid
opinion that by that time capital,
which is always timid, would have
taken the alarm, and the canal digging
would come to an end for want Of
means to carry it on.
Now, my friend, don't fall under
the delusion that this opposition to
ON inter oceanic canal is a mere dog
in the manger' policy, which cannot be
justified. To begin with, it would be
folly enough for US. with the weak
grasp we already have upon the East
ern trade ourselves, to furnish. or to
allow anybody else to furnish, if we
could prevent it, shorter cut for that
trade between Asia and Europe, an
advantage which our European COM
petitors and rivals would seize on the
instant and use to give the finishing
blow to American commerce.
Again. there is a political reason
why we cannot allow our neighber,
Colombia, to do a thing which we, as
a nation, do continually-to permit
and encourage, indefinitely, large
amounts OF foreign capital to seek in
vestment there. We know perfectly
well that no matter how many hundred
million dollars OF English or other
foreign capital are invested in this
country in railroads, canals or other
enterprises, it is absolutely free from
foreign political control. With Col
ombia the case is radically different.
Say, for example, that Americans
should conclude to invest a hundred
million dollars in Panama canal, and
should send ten thousand men from
the United States to build it. How
long do you think it would be before
American capital aud American
brains would gain political control Of
Colombia No, the thing would
never do.
DEPRESSING, Mr.. Whitthorne said:
II do not take much stock in all
this talk about government aid to re-
vive American commerce | have
been, and still am, free trader. In
my time l have strongly advocated
/ free ships, free material for ships. sub.
sides or bounties, and | have prated 9
lglod deal about the eighty or hundred
millions a year that we We pay foreign
ship owners for carrying our product.
to market. But l have about come tC
the conclusion that all this talk about
-