Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-12-17
THE CLAYToN-BULwER TREATY AND
TIE IsTHMUs CANAL QUESTION.

Lowell in regard to the modification of the
Ciayton.Bulwer treaty have the curious
diplomatic defect of having been issued in
such a manner as to have all the appear.
ance of an afterthought. Mr.. Blaine first
issued his famous Circular, in which he
altogether ignored the existence OF the
Clay ton-Bulwer treaty, and IN which ne
actually asserted that the traditional and
consistent policy of the United States had
always been to insist upon that which, by
the terms CT this treaty, our Government
had formally engaged itself not to attempt.
In fact it is impossible to account for the
language of the Circular otherwise than by
supposing that Mr. Blaine did really forget
that the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty was in
existence. Having committed this ex
traordinary blunder it has become Heces
sary for him to retrace his steps as far as
that is possible, and to propose the modi-
fication of the treaty at the end instead
of at the beginning of the proceedings. This
involves serious embarrassment, however,
for it cannot be possible to make the
English Government believe that the Sec.
rotary Of State had undesignedly trav,
ersed the most important provi-
sions of treaty, and the people
at Downing street may be pardoned if
they. suspect that Mr.. Blaine has been
taking a leaf from the note. book of
Russian diplomacy, as illustrated in the
Reputation of the Black Sea treaty. The
Government which opens negotiation of
this kind by declaring a policy to be old
which everyone knows to be new, and by
declaring it in fat violation of the terms
of treaty whose binding force it does not
even take the trouble to question, must ex-
peet difficulties when it proceeds to recur
to that treaty, and to demand that it be
practically cancelled. In fact Mr.. Blaine
has put the United States in a seriously
false position. He has in effect said to
England, I'VE never made any stipu-
lations with you about this matter, and
''we intend to act on that hypothesis. :"
And after saying this, which England
knows to be untrue, he stultifes us still
farther by asking England to consent to
the modification of the provisions which
he has already said will not in any case be
adhered to.
With Secretary of State possessing Mr..
Blaine's peculiar diplomatic tendencies it
would not be at all difficult to entangle
ourselves in such way that war with Eng
land would be inevitable. 1t is fortunate
that at this time the relations between the
two nations are more than ever friendly,
for we may hope that Mr.. Gladstone's Gov
eminent will make the necessary allow.
ances in case which really does not admit
of much apology. Mr.. Blaine cannot
rectify his first blunder, but must 90 on
with the case as he has made it. His letter
to Lowell contains what is really strong
argument on behalf of American monopoly
of the protection of the Isthmus Canal,
and had it been dispatched prior to the
publication of the unfortunate Circular. or.
what would have been better, had the lat
ter not been issued at all, we should have
reason to expect a good-tempered discus.
sion of the question. There are, however,
some points in Mr.. Blaine's argument which
are liable to be turned against himself. His
assertion of the right of the United States
to defend her Pacific coast possessions is
well put, but it does not seem to have &C.
Cured to him that the power to which he
addresses himself also has Pacific coast
possessions, and therefore may contend
that it is as much interested as the United
States in having access to them. And if
Mr.. Blaine's argument against the opening
of the Isthmus Canal for the passage of
war ships desiring to attack American
ports is strong SO is the inevitable re-
joinder that the closing of the canal against
England in war time would cut her off
from her Pacific colonies, and place them
at the mercy of the United States.
Mr.. Blaine insists that we must have
the sole right to fortify the approaches to
the canal, and to garrison such Notifications
in conjunction with the forces of the United
States of Colombia. Thiswe cannot do under
the Clayton ulwer treaty. and therefore we
demand the modification of that treaty,
But it is apparent that however bold a
position our Government may take, it can
not break the treaty arbitrarily, and it is
equally certain that it cannot compel
England to modify it if she does not wish
TO do So or fortify the Isthmus in defiance
If treaty stipulations. For though we
nay be invincible on the American cont.
lent, and though no European power is at
Ill likely to attempt to meet US on our own
Ioil, any quarrel as to the protectorate of
he Isthmus would from the nature of the |
Ease have to be carried on by sea, and there
We are anything but supreme. The great |
obstacle to the accomplishment of the |
sthmus policy which Mr.. Blaine has so
rudely announced, in short, consists in
ur present inability to do anything else
han talk about the matter. We do not |
hink it probable that England will take
ur view of the Isthmus question, seeing
hat che has large and important interests
n the Pacific and in the Orient herself.
he is likely to object strongly to the
roposition that the Isthmus shall be closed
gainst all vessels of war in war time, and
OF without reason, inasmuch as this con-
ition is liable to operate powerfully
gainst her interests in the event of war
18th this country.
The worst of it is that Mr.. Blaine's
ocular Circular has so committed the
-nited States that withdrawal is almost
npraeticable. He has taken the position
lat we intend TO control the Isthmus
anal and in taking this nositiop he has