The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1881-12-20
CHILL PRRU.
rhe British Do Net Like
Blain e's Position.

II
New York, 18.-Trtbune's London:
Mr.. Blaine's dispatch to Mr., Lowell, on
November 10, respectingHthe modification
of the Clayton-Bulw treaty, produces 8
painful impression. It elicits strong pro.
tests from various quarters. The form
in which Mr.. Blaine states his demands
is quite as impalatable as the substance.
People criticize the pre-emptory abrupt
ness OF the tone, and the use Of such
phrases as requires notifications" as
serts the right to control the transit, -
Unnecessary changes" and will not con-
sent 10 perpetuats the treaty." All of
these lie on one side Of the ordinary
diplomatic vocabulary. Some resent this
as the language Of menace, some ridicule
it as clumsiness and want of acouaipt-
ance with diplomatic messages on the
part Of Mr.. Blaine, saying why bring up
the matter while the relations Of the two
nations are so cordial
It provokes the Standard 10 observe
that such language reminds one Of con-
fdence trick. Others think that the pro-
LESSONS OF peculiar friendship end oddly
In the avowal of the desirabiiity of put
ting England on precisely the same foot
ing as other nations.
The NeaOS. in style less violent, but
exceedingly firm, declares the Monroe
doctrine In its modern expansion, has
never been admitted by Europe, nor is i.
admissible. 1t describes Blaine's claim
to treat the Panama Canal as a purely
an American question, as an astounding
assumption Of authority, and pronounces
the despatch Deither courteous nor con-
siderate. It insists that the canal poba-
bly, concerns England twice as much as
the United States. and concludes that
least Of all countries can England con-
sent to place the consent of her vast COM
merce In the hand Of any power, however
friendly.
The Times discusses the dispatch in
q seesaw article, admitting that Mr..
Blsine's contention is not wholly unrea-
sonsble, but repelling the cynical as
sumption that a treaty expressly provi0-
ing for state Of war would be torn up
by war, it declares that all England is
really concerned about is the free use of
the canal for trading purposes, but insists
that it Is a valid document, binding on
both countries. 1t asks: What equiva ent
Blaine offers for cancelling the treaty?
Mr.. BiaIne's argument from the Suez
canal is, generally considered as weaken
ing to his case. 1t is pointed out here
that England neither exercises nor claims
exclusive control Of the Suez canal, nor
has she built furtiGcsti n on the 18th
mus. Blaine IS apparently If the view
really held here respecting the Suez
canal, which high official, yesterday,
stated thus. that in case Of war England
would regard the Suez canal not as avail
10 n ito ~
prize of victory. Nobody preteDds TO
know what Granville replied to Lowell,
out the ultimate action Of the English
government must be Influenced greatly
by the general opinion it is not yet time
for the public 10 consider tae subject
fully. It is probable enough that an
agreement on essential points may be
reached, but disqualification Of this dis
pa en- has undoubtedly created fresh OBJ
stacle and made concession more Gifficult
This sudd,n development Of the
Panama question overshadows the Chill
Peru complication, respecting which
Englishmen now believe or hope that
Pres dent Arthur has no design to assert
an AmP lran protectorate.
The OSS m CT, commenting II Blaine's
deepAtch to Lowell tou hing the Clayton.
BulWer treaty, say :: Bialnes argument
amounts to a simple declaration that the
Union intends t. assert It's pTimscy on
the continent of America, regardless Of
treaty rights, or claims. Of rival power;.
1t must be disbesrte0ing TO believers ct
the new vangel OF progress to discover
that a model democratic republic can
exhibit 81 cynical disregard for treaty OBJ
legations as cou'd be displayed by the
most corrupt Of The Old World monar-
chies. But those who disbelieve in inter
national understandings will admit that
America lie only acting in regard to Pa
nsraa as other nations would act in her
place. Where Blaine is wrong ia in his
assumption that the United States are
doug in Panama Whit England has
done 10 Suez. On the contrary. England
is content 10 leave the highway TO her
eastern empi:e at the mercy Of foreign
powers who are her friends to-day but
may be her enemies tomorrow.