Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1881-11-25
THE PANAMA CANAL.
what Mr.. ArOsemeDs, Late COIOm-
bian Minister. Has az say About
the Proposed Joint GuaraBtse Of
Neutrality.
COrrespOna.nee Ne,. Yorh Heral6

am sorry TO perceive from your editorial
OF this morning that my views IN regard to
Secretary Blsine's circular were not ex-
pressed in such q way as to make them
readily understood, and now comply with
your suggestion to send you second COM
munication.
Before entering upon the main subject al
low me to state that l am not to-day Co
lombisn Minister IN this country, where
there is none ct present / distinctly said
that held that post FROM 1879 to 1889.
Were | filing It yet l should not have In
the present state of the negotiations made
public my views nor those OF tke govern
ment through the press. l am, IS express
ed In my card left With you, Colo mbian
Miuister at Caracas, Venezuela, apd am
here now oa leave Of absence attending to
family matters.
What you call my complaints about Mr..
Blsine's circular efers principally to the
manner in which be contemplates the joint
guarantee Of the Panama canal By the Eu-
ropean maritime powers. BE deems it rot
only unnecessary, but offensive to the
United Ssstss, although l fail to zee the
reasons. hold that the joint guarantee ia,
| TO say the least, convenient 20 the com
merce Of the world, 10 Colombia and even
to the Uoised States. In cSse of a war to
which the United States we're a party the
| guarantee maip taiRed by this power alone
would amount to nothing, as ils own trade
would be exposed to hostilitiss while IN the
canal, whereas, should other powers ioin in
the guarantee, the American trade would
psss through unmolested.
L. is no small merit Of Mr.. BlaIne's eireu-
| lar that it has considerably reduced and
| condensed the questions connected with
this subject. Not many months ago obiec-
| tion was made by several newspapers, and
! even IN Congress, to the very nationality of
the men who should undertake the con
structien OF the canal and as to the "con-
| troll" and the Monroe doctrine" there was
| such vagueness or such exaggerAtion that it
would have been hard to understand and
still more to answer the arguments brought
| forward. Your paper assuredly did not
| take that course, snd juAt .Dscause I found
| that your views were perhaps nearer to NV
own than those OF any other Journal, did l
| choose your columns for those communiea-
| tions.
do not think that you or anybody here
| would Obiset 10 the Joint guarantee OF the
| csnsl II it did not carry with it the right for
/ other nations TO have their war vessels pass
! through that wGtsrwsS II time of war with
! the United States. But, as | said IN nv frat
/ letter, this right IL not q necessary cOnse-
| qvenee OF the guarantee, the OH set of
which is mair IL to benefit the commerce of
the world. There is ample rosm here vet
] for negotiation, but IS to the joiat guAran-
| tee alone and Independent OF obnoxious
| conditions | could never seo the harm OF f..
| Mr.. Fish seems TO have entertained the same
! opinion, and | cannot close this without
noticing that the open contrast between his
views and those of his successors has rot
| struck you, since you make no mention of
it, am, cir, yours very truly,
JUsTo AROsENKNA
Coleman House, Nesg York, November 81, 1851