New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-11-23
4 cOLOuBTAN ARGUUENT.

a COLOMBIAN ARG UMENT.
Mr.. Justo Arosemena, formerly Colombian
Minister IN this country, who is now, we
understand, in New-YOrk upon business for
his Government, has written letter TO
The Herald, critcising the position taken by Sec
rotary Blaine in his note to MIR. Lowell on the
Panama Canal question. Mr.. Arcsemena does
not express himself with as much distinctness
as we could wish, and he is careful to claim for
his communication no other weight than would
belong to the opinions of private citizen OF
Colombia. His general purpose is plain
enough, however and in expressing 1t he can
not wholly divest himself of his official charac-
ter. much as he may desire to do so. 1t will he
assumed in this country that when a former
Minister opposes the further Observance OF
treaty stipuatiOns concerning an 1sthmus canal
which his Government made with ours III
1916, and which are still i'll force, he does so
with some knowledge of the views of the au-
thoritics at Bogota. Mr. Arosemena objects to
a purely American guarantee Of the neutrality
of the canal He wants JOINT guarantee by all
the great maritime Powers, and he appeals from
Mr.. Blaine to Mr. Fish. In February, 1877,
Mr.. Fish proposed to the Nicaraguan Minister
at Washington draft of convention to
form treaty concerning canal through the
territory of Nicaragua for which IA general guar
antee of the principal maritime Powers was
sought. The convention was not executed, for
the reason that the canal project failed to as
sumo practical shape. Now the late Colombian
Minister, with questionable taste, suggests that
rs President Garfield is dead and Mr.. Blaine Is
going out of the Cabinet, eve are justified III
in thn whit 1IrpptIDn
from the new Administration" THIS further
advance y he defines, curiOusly enough, as Il re-
turn to the opinions entertained by General
Grant, as interpreted and developed by Mr..
Fish, In other words, we are to progress Ike
a crab, and "advance" from the ground OF
purely American guarantee for the canal, freed
from foreign complications and the danger OF
foreign control, to a complicated joint ar
rangcmeut with England AMI France and posi-
Div with Spain and two or three other European
naval Powers Because Mr.. Fish was willing
TO enter into n copartnersllip with European
nations to protect the neutrality of problem
atcal Nicaraguan canal, President Arthur Is to
abandon the advantage secured to the United
States thrty-hve years ago of being the sole
guarantor of Panama canal.
We tail to see the force of this logic Our
Government has protected Colombia in the soy
ercignty of the isthmus since lSl6-a sover-
eighty by the way to which she has but
moderate geographical or historical claims.
We have faithfully observed and are still
observing our obligations toward Colombia
under the treaty of that date. We have the
right to expect that Colombia will be equally
faithful to her Obligations toward us. In re-
6 -, ,1,.lt ii Ia
mus. she agreed to give Us the benefit of being
the sole guarantor of the neutrality of any
canal which might bc cut across it. She has
reapcd'hCr advantage from the treaty for more
than a quarter of a century now We mtcnd 10
enjoy ours. The bargain was not onc-sidcd
one Why should the United states be asked
10 make it so at this late day by throwing away
the sole compensation we can receive for our
tlirty-Gve years proflleSs protcctorAtci
Mr.. Arosemena argues that England. owning
colonies on the Pacific. should have the same
privilege Of passing her war ships through the
canal that we have. This Is just what We OBJ
iect to. 1t was in order to prevent England or
any other great naval Power with whom We
might be at war from getting ID, fleets through
the isthmus TO attack our Pacific States that
we made the treaty Of 1916. Mr.. Arosemcna
ovcrlooks the vital point at Issue. We cannot
consent to a Joint guarantee because il would
greatly jcOpardzc our interests a nation.
The neutrality Of the canal must not depend
upon the observance of "A treaty by naval
Power able to seize its unfDrtGed mouths at
any time. The time may come when in de.
fence Of our interests we shall claim the
right to do what was conceded by the protocol
signed last winter by Mr.. Agreements success
sor at Washington, Mr.. Santo Domingo Vila,-
protect the canal by forts and naval stations
against foreign interference. If it should come
we shall find our justification under the priuci-
pies of international law in the treaty of 1916