National Republican., 1882-12-05
KASSON ON BLAINE.
The Former Replies to the Lntter's stric-
lures on His Nicaragua Canal Report.

Mr.. Blaine has been interviewed, on the
Nicaraguan canal project, and has very
sharply criticised the report of the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs, presented by
Mr.. Kasson. In order to obtain, If possible,
Mr.. Kassons opinion of Mr.. Blaine's views,
reporter called at his rooms last evening,
when the following interview was had:
"Have you seen the report in this morn
ings Post of an interview with Mr.. Blaine,
and his opinion touching the report made by
you from the Committee on Foreign Affairs
in regard to the construction Of the Nicaraguan
Canal?'
"Ycs, read everything Mr.. Blaine gives to
the prcss.'
"What do you think of his views upon the
bill which you report?'
al think Mr.. Blaine must be very badly
and very incorrectly reported"
"Why?"
versation he has never seen either the bill or
the committees report"
What leads you to say that?'
Because he is reported rs saying that it is
a proposition to expend S75, ,000, 600 (by ap-
preparation from the Treasury in a country
where we have no control, and where we have
treaty with another country binding us not
to assume any CONTROL In another place he
says it would be reckless folly for the United
States to expend a large sum of money on the
proposed canal"
is that incorrect?"
Most decidedly. Neither the bill nor the
report proposes that the government shall ex-
pend one dollar of money in the construction
of the canal. Further, the bill is in perfect
accordance with the concessions made by the
Nicaraguan government to the company, which
is to construct the canal with money to be
subscribed by its stockholders. The bill does
not require the United States to perform
single act yiolafinU pyietinU freafiag with
country"
I" find the following language used in the
conclusion of the alleged interview:
You thinS; h;iII then we are not ready for Mr..
"By no means, !" said Mr. Blaine, Some weighty
Preliminaries must be definitely settled before the
United States will be justified in putting single
dollar Into an Inter ocean canal II we should
pass the seventy five million appropriation at this
time, suggest the following title: A bill to en-
nance the power and prestige of the British navy.
and to humiliate the government and people Of
the United States"
"If you do not object, wish you would
state a little more fully your views of the
points there made by Mr. Blaine"
Certainly; there is no objection to doing
SO. You observe he objects to the United States
putting single dollar into an inter-oceanic
canal, and also speaks of an appropriation of
$75,OO0O00 at this time / repeat there is no
bill for 100000 appropriation or for any
other sum for the construction of this canal.
n private company ueSlreS an 3CU OF 1nCOrp0-
ration, after which they propose, at their
own expense, to construct a canal across the
lsthmus of Nicaragua. Mr.. Blaines statement,
if accurately reported, shows his entire igno-
rance of the bill reported from the committee.
After the canal shall have been completed
and vessels are passing through it, the United
States proposes to guarantee per cent. upon
the cost of the canal limiting that cost to a
maximum of 100000 900. The per cent. is
to be paid only upon the actual cost to the
builders and for period of only twenty
years. This is the entire pecuniary liability
to be assumed by the United States, and is re-
duced by every ton of shipping passing through
the canal. In the opinion Of the committee this
tonnage, from the first day, will be more than
sufficient to discharge entirely this per cent.
liability. In return for this the United States
is authorized to limit the maximum, and sub
sequently to reduce and regulate the rates of
toll upon shipping passing through the canal.
The United States further reserves the right
to resume contol and possession of the canal
whenever, in its judgment, it shall be justified
in exercising that right by virtue of treaty or
the necessity of war. That right SO conceded
by the constructing company is worth many
millions to the government.
" Mr. Blaines argument in the alleged inter-
view seems to be this: The United States have
no right to control a canal when built; they
cannot permit any canal to be built of which
they do not have control, therefore there must
be no canal built in their interest or against
their interest; consequently there must be no
canal. He seems to assume that any country
except the United States can do what they
please with the canal after it is built. affirm,
on the other hand, that when the canal shall
be built by the citizens of the United States
our government will have higher right to
protect the interests of its own citizens in the
use of the coal and to make it tributary to
our commercial developments than any other
government whatever, this government hav-
ing as much right by treaty, and much more
by virtue of the accrued rights of it's citizens
who built it. Further than this, if Mr.. Blaine
had read the committees report he would
have comprehended other national advan-
tages resulting from the construction of this
canal on that route which / do not care to
make prominent in this connection. The
canal will give us commercial line nearly
three thousand miles shorter to the west coast
of South America and to our own Western
coast than the same line will be for English
commerce following the shortest line of navi-
cation. 1t will reverse the existing condi-
tions which now give a shorter line from
Liverpool around the Cape than from New
York. 1t will put it in our power, in case of
war, to close the canal against the use of an
enemy more easily than an enemy could close
it against us, and that too without the con-
struction of q single fertilization.
81 regret very much that Mr.. Blaines
name should be given to so complete mis-
representation of the provisions of the bill,
and of the national interests involved in the
construction of this canal. / must still be-
lieve that he has been enormously reported in
the alleged interview"