Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-11-04

subject. 1t is as likely as not that he had
never given ten minutes of thought to it
before the reporter asked him to state his
ideas for publication. What he has said is
strange tumble of sense and nonsense.
Thus he is keen enough to see the absurd
ity of the windy Drag about the Monroe
doctrine, yet the conclusion Of his review is
that the United States ought to threaten
to seizs the Panama Canal whenever her
interests nay demand such. a step. This
amazing remark actually follows citation
of European history which shows that
Batter understands the folly of masking
threats which cannot be fulfilled. And,
indeed, he observes in SO many words,
whatever paper guarantees there might
"be, the strongest naval nation, in time
"of war, would take possession of the
Panama Canal" Precisely 50; and as
the United States is not the strongest. but
almost the weakest, naval nation, it is
clear that she could not retain possession
Of the canal even if she seized it in ac-
cordance with Batler's wild suggestion.
But his observations upon the effect of
the proposed canal on Pacific coast inter-
ests are the most remarkable. He sagely
remarks that at present England could not
I" blockade San Francisco. because to Go
50 would require steam iron-clads, and
because she has no vessels of tnat class
which "can carry mora than enough coal
''to make the run from the Sandwich
Islands to Saa Francisco and return !;
"but open the Panama Canal, and you
"might as well anchor Gibraltar off the
"Golden Gate, because then she could put
her heavy iron-clads around our Pacific
ports and maintain them there, certainly
"until we could build navy that could
8" cope with them" This Is an extraor-
binary farrago OF blunders. 1t almost re-
minds one of Jules Verne's science. 1t
will be news to the Pacific squadron Of
II. NJ. Victoria that it cannot obtain
coal any nearer San Francisco than
the Sandwich Islands. But this alb
surdity Is even less strange than Bat
ler's notion that in the event OF war there
would be any question of blockading"
the Poetic ports, Enemies do not block
adedefenselesa ports. They take possession
Of or destroy them. This is what would
happen to San Francisco in case of war.
That important and wealthy city has no
saaward defenses, and her harbor forti-
fcations are perfectly useless as against
even an unarmored vessel carrying heavy
metal. There would be no need of an
ironclad feet to reduce her to submission
or TO ashes. A single vessel, armed with
such guns a played part in the lombard
ment Of Valparaiso, could lay well out at
sea and shell the city in perfect security.
Aud this can be done now, before any
Panama canal IS built. And the building
of the Panama canal would make San
Francisco neither stronger nor weaker than
she is to-day.
As to Butler's ignorant nonsense about
the relations of British commerce to the
Pacific coast, an average sehoolboy ought
to be a5le'to give more intelligent view
of the situation. British ships come to San
Francisco, and always have done. because
their own interests led them there. If the
canal was built they would continue to be
inspired by the same motives, and the only
difference would be the duration OF their
voyages. There has never bean any ques-
ton Of British or American commerce in
the matter As for American marina CON-
merce, Butler and his fellow Protection;sts
have efectually destroyed that interest.
he and they have helped to sweep the
American flag from the Pacific as
well as from all other oceans, and we
are compelled to do our carrying in
British bottoms simply because we have nc
SHIPS Of our own. San Francisco, how.
ever, has nothing to fear from the Panama
Canal that the natural tendencies Of trans
portation would not subject her to in a few
years under guy circumstances. With
the completion of close and numerous
connections with the South and East all
hope of the maintenance of her commercial
supremacy must inevitably pass away.
The multiplication of transportation
agencies which her shortsighted press
affects 10 rejoice over viii beyond question
destroy her monopoly of distribution for
this coast, and reduce her to a very
subordinate position. But it does not need
Panama Canal to effect these changes,
and the completion o; that undertaking
could only emphasize o. at most hasten
them littls. The truth is that Butler
has not the least intelligent comprehension
of the subject he has undertaken to en-,
tighten the public rpon, ard his idea that
though the United States has not the
naval power necessary to hold the canal
yet it ought to announce its determination
to take possession Of the work whenever
it pleased, shows how little thought ne has
given to the question. Bat it may be seri
ously questioned whether Mr.. BLAINE
knows much more about the matter thai
| a.