The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1881-12-19
cLAYToN-BULwER TREATY
Mr.. Blaine's Letter Not Well Re-
ceived in England.
COMMENTS OF THE LONDON PRESS
AND PEOPLE.

LONDON, Dec. 1.-THE Times, in its leading
article this morning on Mr.. Blaine's dis
patches, already quoted from, after saying
that "the letter of the law is on the side OF
England" continues as follows: "The country
which seeks to set it aside may fairly be asked
to propose some equivalent If international
good faith is to count for nothing, with what
show of reason can England be required to al
low the highway between two oceans to be
placed under American control, and in war
and in peace alike to be commanded by Amer
lean guns? Mr.. Blaine must remember that
freedom of passage between the two oceans
can in no possible event become an exclusively
American right. The whole world has an in
tel est in the maintenance OF the free use OF
great highways" After announcing this OBJ
! lection, it says: "Mr. Blaine's case, however,
is stronger in some ways than he ventures to
make it, as the time must arrive when the
weak Central American countries will be abb
sorbed by the United States and the coast line
will extend to the full limits that Mr.. Blaine
fancifully indicates"
New YORK, Dec 1.-THE Tribune's Lon
don special says: 'Mr Blaine's despatch re-
specting the Clayton-Bulwer treaty ELECTS a
strong protest from various quarters. People
criticize the psremptory abruptness of tone and
use of such phrases as Requires modifica-
tions," "Asserts right to control transit,'s
Necessary changes" and "Will not consent
to perpetuate the treaty."
Some resent this as language of menace.
Some ridicule it as clumsiness and want OF
acquaintance with diplomatic usages.
The Daily News declares Mr.. Blaine's claim
to treat the Panama canal as purely Ameri-
can question an astounding assumption OF
authority and pronounces the despatch neither
courteous nor considerable. 1t insists that the
canal probably concerns England twice as
much as the United States and concludes that
England cannot consent to place the control OF
her vast commerce in the hands of any power
however friendly. Mr. Blaine's argument
from the Suez Canal is generally considered to
weaken his case. England neither exercises
nor claims exclusive control of the Suez Canal,
nor has the built Notifications on the Isthmus.
. A high official yesterday statedthat in case of
war England would regard the Suez Canal not
as available for immediate military use, but as a
prize of victory. Nobody pretends to know
what Lord Granville replied to Mr.. Lowell,
but the ultimate action of the English govern
ment must be influenced greatly by the gem
eneral opinion that it is not yet time for the
public to consider the subject fully 1t Is
probable enough that an agreement on essen
tial points may reached but the publication
this dispatch has undoubtedly created fresh
obstacle and made concession more difficult.
The Worlds London special says it seems to-
be felt that Mr.. Blaine is correct in the view
that the convention was made under circum-
stances which have greatly changed and that
no important point is to be gained by
England's insisting on keeping in force SUI
perauous treaty 1t is therefore probable that
no difficulty will be experienced in meeting
the wishes of the United States although some
of the arguments and expressions used by Mr.
Blaine are regarded as strained or misapplicd
No parallel, for example, it is claimed exists
between England's interests in the Suez Canal
and the interests of the United States in Pana-