New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-10-29
THE ISTHMUS QUESTION.

Looking at the lSthmus question from the
point of view of British interests, The London
Times fails to why there should be any re-
pugnance upon the part of the Government of
the United States to allowing England or
France to JON in a guarantee of the neu-
trality of the Panama canal. If England
is TO have no locus stdRd i'm the matter
and only the United States and Colombia are
10 act as guarantors The Times apprehcnds
that American statesmen may in some future
contingency claim the right to tear up the
treaty they have made, and suspend the neu-
trality of the canal. This is not an unfair
way of putting the case, but the argu-
ment strengthens instead of weakcns the
position taken in Mr. Blaine's letter. 1t
is true that treaties can be abrogated as easily
as made, and that a guarantee cannot be ex-
pected to last longer than it is for the benefit
OF the Nations making 1t to keep it in force.
But Tor this very reason the United States
must insist, in view of its paramount interests
upon both coasts of this continent, that the
canal guarantee shall be an American contract
not liable TO be set aside or infrnged ut the
pleasure OF any European power We cannot
consent to England or France becoming parties
to the contract because they maintain power
full fleets and armies which we cannot rival in
time of peace without doing violence to our
ideas of public policy and orr views of the
true functions of free republican Govern
ment. In of n threatened war. under plea
of securing the neutrality guarantee, it would
be easy for either of those nations to Law
hands upon the entrances to the canal and con-
vert the work into powerful weapon to be
turned against us.
To narrow the argument down, let us imagine
a quarrel to arise between ENGLAND and the
-.
the arbitrament of war the most probable re-
suit. Is it to be supposed that, with power
full feet in the West Indies and another in the
Pacific, England would hesitate To put herself
in position to seize the canal mouths at the
first outbreak of hostlities, it, indeed. she did
not earlier do so a precautionary measure?
Would her participation in a guarantee treaty
restrain her when her interests as a Nation
were in peril 1t will, perhaps, be urged in
reply, that England could do the same
thing if she were excluded from the
guarantee compact. Certainly she could, If we
took no measures to guard against the power
Of her formidable navy. But Mr.. Blaine's let
ter is explicit upon this very point 1t says:
" The United States of America will insist
"upon her right to take all necdful precautions
against the possibility of the Isthmus transit
being in any event used Extensively against
cher interests upon the land or upon the sea- y
The meaning of this is not in the
least obscure. Necdful precautions may
signify the erection of Notifications and
the establishment of naval stations mt
the entrances to the canal, with the
assent and cooperation of Colombia. Mr. Blaine
evidently means to give notice that this
Government may, on the completion of the
canal deem it prudent to secure its neutrality
by more efficient methods than paper guar
antee, and that if it should see fit SO take such
a step the assent of European powers would
not be asked.
joint guarantee with England and France.
or either of them, would cause us to lose all
the advantage in the political control of the
canal which our position as the foremost nation
on the American continent, and the magnitude
of our possessions upon both oceans, gives lis
the right to claim. For this reason we decline
such an alliance. Standing upon the treaty of
1916, Mr. Blaine maintains that the United
States and Colombia having agreed to n Joint
guarantee OF any canal to be opened through
the Panama Isthmus, we are justified III re-
jectlng the demand OF any other Nation to be
admitted rs II party to contract which this
Government had the foresight to make thirty
five years ago. The only plea made by The
Times on behalf OF England to be associated in
the guarantee which has any weight is that of
her ownership of territory fronting upon the
Pacific. But british Columbia, the territory in
question, has population Of only 40. 900
souls, and shows small capacity for growth
Her evident destiny is to be associated
with our prosperous Pacific States and her
colonial dependence upon England. tempororv
Us it Is regarded by her own people. is cir