New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1882-12-04
THE NICARAGUA CANAL Project.
OBJECTIONS TO THE KAssoN BILL.


Mr.. BLAINE SHOWS THE FOLLY OF CONSTRUCTING
THE CANAL WHILE TREATIES FORBID THE
UNITED STATES TO CONTROL IT.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 3.-1he Post tomorrow morn
ing will publish conversation with James G.
Blaine in relation to the proposition to appropriate
$75.000,000 for the construction ofan interoceanlc
canal in Nicaragua, embraced in the kasson blll
and report. The reporter asked Mr.. Blaine II he
thought Congress could be induced 10 make the
prant. " / sincerely hope not" was Mr. Blaiucs
reply. | never heard" h. addsl, "a more eX-
traOTdinary proposition than for the United States
TO expend S75, 900 900 in a country where we have
no control. and when we have treaty with another
country binding us not to assume any control We
have no treaty with Nicaragua giving us control of
the canal after shall have constructed IT. while we
have treaty with that country forbiddlng our con-
troll / mean further, that in the unfortunate Clay
ton-Bulwer Treaty we engaged with Great Britain
not to fortify the canal when built In any manner
whatever. With these two treaties in force il would
be reckless folly for the United States to cxpend
large sum of money on the proposed canal"
Has not the State Department, under the present
Secretary, taken the ground that the Cayton-Bul-
wcr Treaty is not in forceT
"But the English Government" replied Mr..
Blaine lust distinctly takes the ground that it
is force and the letter of the treaty shows it to
be in force"
But did You not yourself as Secretary of State,
take the ground that tho treaty no longer Oper-
ativcp
ooh, not all; not at all" replied Mr.. Blaine with
emphasis. Il took the ground that the lapse OF
time and the great change IN our continental rela-
tiOns justified our Government in asking several
notifications in the treaty which | specified"
DO you think the United States ought 10 bring
the treaty to an endF
THAT could be done only by formally denounc-
ing it, and that is a harsh proceeding. Besides
many of the provisions of the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty are advantageous both to England and the
United States, aud should be maintained.
But we cannot afford to build canal across Ncara-
qua long the provisions OF the Clay ton -buwer
Treaty respecting IL are III force We cannot alord
TO build mtcTOceanlc canal which W. do not con-
troll, and, more than that We cannot afford To have
any nteIoceanic canal IN Central America no mat
ter who builds II, unless we can control IT, That
COutrO is aSt as essential TO us as tc cOhIrOI OF te
SucZ Canal Is 20 Great bri;aln."
Do Won think Great Britain viii secure the
recognition of her right of control Of the SUcz Canal
from the other Great Powers by tregtyV
No. of course not" said Mir. Blame. But Why
should Great Britain ask il Her navy absolutely
controls the canal at both ends aud no European
can place an army there to dispute ne mas
terry of the IrOn-cladS. Why, then, shonld treat
Britain ask treaty 70 give her what she already
has But Englands control OF the Sucl Canal Is
not more absolute than the same power control ot
the Nicaragua Canal would lie If ballt under the
rrovs.ofs OF The Kasson bill We are bound by
treaties roth with England and Ncarl@ua not TO
fortfy the canal and so. Of course, that caves the
coItrl OF the British Navy just a absolute as ut
SuCZ.' q.
I}ut after all" quered the reporter, does it
make much difference who controls the canal, so
that we got the commercial advantage ot IT =
II that question could bc authoIitatiyely ad-
dressed 10 Great Britain y0H would perhaps get 3n
answer that Ould satisfy you. In times OF peace
If Wnud make little difference, with equal and I'M
partial tolls but if war aid unhapPiiy come the
nation controlling the canal would have = vast adj
vantage. With the control OF the canal
in our hands, vessel of war lying IN the
Gulf Of Mexico is just aS available Tor
the defence of san francisco a. for the
defence of NcwYork. With The cOntroi OF the canal
in BT ish hauus English mal-oi-War IN the Gun
J., inst as available Tor attacking san Francesca "a
NeN-York. The British Government understands
the difference, If we do not" ,
"loa think th.n, We are not ready for Mr.. Kas-
som, bll. = said tlie rcpOgter.
l}y no means" said Mr Bi4inc. Some weighty
prclinnnarcs must be definitely settled before The
United states Will be justified in putting single
dollar into an IutcrOr" .nlc canal ii we $40 ia
pass the $7jCOO,O0O appropriation Al tHs Tine,
/ suggest the following title: A bill to enhauco
tnc power and pc lgc OF the British Navy, and 10
lu;HIlate the Government and people CI the United