The Pulaski citizen. [volume] (Pulaski, Tenn.) 1866-current, 1882-01-05
wHITTHoRNE.
The Commodore Advances an
Argument Against the Pa
mama Canal.
wa,hing,on special 70 cinoinnati Conn.

Washington Special to Cincinnati Com.
Congressman WhItthorne, of Ten
uessee, was q member of the inter
oceanic canal committee Of the house
in the last congress, and vigorously
opposed all schemes for the con-
struction OF either q canal or ship
railway, on the ground that any IN
ter-oceanic- ship transit would be
detrimental to the commercial and
poIitical interests OF the United
States. A correspondent who met
Representative Whitthorne yester-
day asked:
"Are you still opposed to an in
ter-oceanic canal?
"Certainly / am. The history OF
the world records that the iwo spots
on the earth's surface on which,
and for the possession or control OF
which the fiercest struggles have
been made, and The most blood nss
been shed, are the Straits OF Glib
raltar and the Dardanelles. Why
should the United States encourage
other conflicts Of the same sort by
the digging of an ocean canal to
draw the fleets and navics of Europe
to our shores, and TO impose upon
us the necessity Of maintaining In
Doth oceans vast navsl ornaments
to protect our Pacific trade, as well
as the immense commerce OF the
Mississippi and its tributaries
which seeks an outlet through the
Gulf of Mexico. II our own citizens
should build such a canal, the Uait
ed States would be compelled to
build forts and sustain navies for
it's defense. In case Of war q guar
antee of neutrality would amount &c
nothing. unless we had the physical
strength to enforce 1t"
Ought the United States to allow
tn. canal to he built and controlled
by foreign Interestr
mo, OF course not"
How could it be preventedY'
"Oh, | think there would be nc
difficulty. We must insist, II need
be, upon the abrogation OF the Clay
ton Bulwer treaty, on the ground
that We have found it Inconsistent
with our interests and with our OBJ
legations under the treaty OF IS4t
with New Grenada"
but suppose that De Lessep'
should pay no attention to a hin
like that, and should keep on dig
ging?"
"Why, then we ought to inform
the Colombian government that WI
had determined to enforce GU
treaty obligations, and that, in GU
opinion, the presence of such over
Swallowing foreign influences anC
interests in that country was con
sidered a menace to American inter
csts. Then we might dispatch GU
war vessels, il we had any, to watcl
the operations of the Ffenchma1
and look after our interests in tbs
quarter. 1t is my candid opinion
that by that time capital, which II
alwa,s timid, would have taken th'
alarm, and the canal digging would
come to an end for the want OF meani
to carry it on.
Now, my friend, don't fall under
the delusion that this opposition &C
an inter-oceanic canal is a mere dos
in the manger policy, which can mo-
be justified. To begin with, it would
be folly enough for US, with tbs
weak grasp we already have upor
the eastern trade ourselves, TO fur
nish, or allow anybody else to fur
nish, il we could prevent 1T, a short
er cut for that trade between ASH
aud Europe, an advantage which oul
European com petitors aud rivals
would seize on the instant and use
to give the finishing blow to Ameri
can commerce..
"Again, there is a political reason
why We cannot allow our neighbor
| Colombia, To do a thing which We
as a naCion, do CONT lually, to per-
nit and encourage, indefinitely
large amounts OF foreign capital to
seek Investments there. We know
perfectly well that no matter how
many hundred million dollars OF
English or other foreign capital, are
| invested in this country, In rail
roads, canals, or other enterprises,
it is absolutely free from foreign
political control. With ColombIa
the case is radically different. Say,
tor example, that Americans should
conclude to invest hundred mil
lion dollars in a Panama canal, and
should send ten thousand men from
the United States to build it. How
long do you think It would be before
American capital aud American
brains would gain political control
of Colonbia2 No, the thing would
never do"
DEPRESSING, Mr.. Whitthorne said /:
L do not take much stock in all
this talk about government aid to
revive American commerce. L have
been, and still am, free trader. In
my time | have strongly advocated
free ships, free material for ships,
subsidies or bouuties, and L have
prated agood deal about the eighty
or hundred millions year that we
pay foreign ship owners Tor carry
ing our products to market. But L
have about come to the conclusion
that all this talk about free ships,
free material and subsidies is mere
'poppycock,' and that Whenever
Americans discover that they can
employ their capital and energy to
better advantage in transporting
cargoes than they can in producing
cargoes to be transported, then, and
not until then, shall we witness
revival of American commerce.
Sinking Creek.