New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-09-23
yFUrPtIIzlTyOy NTH 4 MORAL.

! TO the effect that Egypt shall he converted lhtO
an Oriental egium. Neither OF these projects
| is likely to be seriously entertained by the
| British Government Under the existing
arrangements transports and war ships have
entered the canal, and Egypt has been the scene
of military operations by which England has
increased her prestige. Her position would be
| materially weakened if either the canal or the
territory were to be ncutraized in the strict
sense of the word Abstract naturalization
would preclude repetition of the operations
by which English influence in Cairo has been
stIengthened 1t would close the canal against
transports and roncads, and would prohibit
hostilties on the part of any European Power
| in the Nile valley or in the isthmus itself.
| Consequently it would tend to diminish the
value of the recent campaign for the Sultan,
the Khedive and the Egyptian peaSantry would
cease TO he impressed by the results OF the
commandment and the invasion if they were
! to learn that England in common with the other
! European Powers was bound by international
! contacts never to do anything of the SOFT
! again. A practical Nation viii not be apt 10
! fritter away its own triumphs on the coast and
in the desert for the sake of distractions OF
! international law
| II must he borne i'm mind that we arc speak
inc of naturalization IN its strict sense as cXcm-
plifcd in the case of Belgium. The territory
of that kingdom has been absolutely neutral
| izcd 10y international action. 1t cannot be IN
yaded by hostile army even neutral force
cannot pass through it; and if troops take
refuge there during campaign they must
| ground their arms and disband. Now even
| if the English were willing to squander their
| newly acquired prestige by advocating
| scheme of absolute neutral cation, Egypt could
! not be converted into an Orcntal Belgium.
! The reason is a geographical one. belgium
ard Egypt have two things in common-a
central position and coast line. But Egypt
has something which Belgium lacks-an in
teroceanic canal. That waterway between
seas is an nsupcrabe obstacle to absolute neg-
! tralzation. II there were no canal Egypt
might become another Belgium under Euro
Ucan guarantees. The caull is line Of
| divergence which breaks mp the parallel.
The Suez Canal cannot be regarded merely
as section OF Egyptian territory. 1t is
! pas-ageway between open seas. 1t must be
! neutralized as a strait, not rs territory, and
| there are fundamental distinctions between
neutral waters and neutral ground like Bel
GUM. The harhOr of Cherbourg was not
closed against either the Alabama or the
Kcarsargo as Belgian is against troops. 1t
was a place Of refuge where each was secure
| against attack from the other, although one
was at liberty to 90 few miles outside the
! bar and sink the other The lower Danube Is
nominally ncutralzcd, bu1 vessels OF war can
pass up and down in time of peace and fight
in midstIeam IN time of war. There are re-
s.rctons imposed upon the navigation of the
approaches to the Black Sea by vessels Of war,
but this is almost the only notable exception
10 the general practice. Unlike neutral Ter
ritorv. which cannot be made Il highway for
TROOPS or a base of operations III war, neutral
waters, and especially straits between seas,
are open in peace and in war to the transports
and cruisers of all Nations. The Sucz Canal,
if ncutralized on the Belgian principle would
! have to be closed against transports aud IRON
clads, while military operations ON Its banks
would be strictly prohibited. Modern usage
would not sanction so rigid a principle Of.nter-
national law. England, of course, would never
consent to have the canal closed at any time
AGAINST Der transports and navy. The present
| arrangements leave nothing to he desired, so
| far as she is concerned. The canal company
acting on the authority OF the Sultan and his
| NIcrroy has proclaimed TIE waterway free and
neutral, and open at all times 10 the ships of
all Nations without exception. This form Of
neutrality did not close the canal against the In.
dian transports III 1878, nor against Admiral
! Seymour's fleet the present year. There has
been no international action, and probably there
will be none The British Government will
iealously reserve the pri' iege of again wag-
ing war Oh the banHS Of the canal whenever
an emergency may arise.
The moral which Americans will draw from
this recent European experience in respect
! 10 interoceanic channels relates necessarily to
the Panama Canal. BY the Bulwer- Clayton
Treaty an cquvocal sort of naturalization WAS
defined. Vessels OF war were left free to pass
through the projected canal at all times, and
protected within It in war time, and military
operations were prohibited in the territory
through which it might be constructed. Under
this treaty Great Britain would have no right
TO carry on such campaign rs has been con-
ductcd in Egypt but her troop-ships ana iron
claus would pass IN and out without interrupt
ton. being exempted from capture or attack
| from one scabOard to the other. The territory
! was absolutely neutralzcd while the water
wav was opened to vessels of war. In
advocating revision Of that treaty, Mr.. Blaine
contendcd that the United States as the lead
Ing Nation of the continent should have the
right of occupying the lshmus IN IN emer-
ecncy-the very privilege Of which England
has availed herself in the lsthnus of Suez
Lord Granville, in reply, advised the United
States to summon general conference OF the
Powers in order to establish system OF in
ternational guarnntees-a course which Eng
land has persistcntly opposed in relation to the
Suez Canal. 1t Is possible that the parallel
inL .iill further IHc NnclininI.