New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-01-17
SOME ENGLISH LIMITATIONS.


in relation to the Suez Canal contains several
limitations which were not defined in the
meagre abstract published o fortnight ago.
The first of these restrictions limits the free
dom of the channel itself. The canal is con-
verted into an arm Ot the sea and declared
freely open - in wal and in peace, but the
British Note also proposes that "a limitation
{" shall be placed On the tin during which the
g. vessels of a bclligerent Power are permitted
to remain in the canal" That is to say, the
canal shall not be occupied by irOntlads and
vessels of war for an indefinite period By
this rule the British fleet will not have the Ii
cense enjoyed during the campaign OF last sum-
mer War vessels can enter the channel and
have absolute freedom OF transit, but they cam
not remain in the channel week after week and
virtually take possession Of it tor their own
USE Obviously this privilege Of indefinite oc
cupation ceases to be of paramount importance
when the country through which the canal
passes Is practically controlled by the British
Government. 1t is a privilege, however which
that Government is unwilling to abandon in re-
laton to another interoceanlc canal. Under
the Clayt Bulwer treaty the British fleet can
remain as long as il likes in the Panama Canal.
There are no restrictions upon freedom of
transit and no limitations on the time during
winch the vessels of belligerent may remain
in the canal or the approaches TO 1t. England
does not have the same control over the Darien
Istnmus which she has acquired over the Suez
Isthnus. Consequently Lord Granville has
been unwilling to modify the text of treaty
which practically gives to the strongest fleet in
the world the command OF the Panama Canal.
This restriction upon the freedom of the
Suez Canal may operate in another way. If
rgidly applied, it may limit the period during
which the canal may be used as place OF Ic-
fuge 10y the vessels of a elligertnt. By Article
H. of the Clayton Bulwcr Treaty, vessels Of
"the United States or Great Britain traversing
the said canal shall, iii case OF war between the
contracting parties, be exempted from block
"ade, detention or capture by either of the bel
"ligereDts." Not only are belIigerent operations
excluded in the channel and its approaches,
but the artificial arm OF the sea ia converted
into a haven of refuge If there were any pro-
vision by which tho vessels of a belligerent
could be required 10 put to sea after fixed
period had elapsed, they would be at the mercy
of the hostile fleet cruising outside. There is
no such provision in the Clayton Bulwer
Treaty; but apparently the period during
which the vessels of belligerents eau remain in
the Suez Canal, rs n har6Or of refuge il to be
restricted. After anchOring IN the channel or
terminal ports for II stated period, they may
be compelled to leave the canal aud 20 To sea,
where they will bo exposed to the risks of as
sault and capture by hostile fleet. If the re-
strction upon the freedom of the canal up-
crates in this way, England will gain more
by it than she can lose. The privilege of indef-
mite occupation by her irOncads can be dis
pensed with when the territory is virtually con-
tolled ly her. The expulsion of hostile ves-
sells, which may be attacked in the open sea by
her own Meet, Is an advantage that will amply
compensate her for the privilege that is re-
nOunced
Finally, no Notifications are to be erected on
the canal OF ia it's vicinity no troops or munitions
Of war are TO he disembarked on the banks and
no hostiities TO be permitted in the canal or
it approaches. In these three respects, the rule
agreed upon between Great Britain and the !
United States in reference to the Panama Canal, |
is 10 be applied to tho Suez Canal. Bat mark |
the qualifications. BY the Clayton liver |
treaty neither Great Britain nor the United |
States is allowed to exercise diplomatic, admin
istrative or political control of tho country |
through which the canal shall pass. In Egypt. the |
diplomatic administrative and political ascen- |
dancy of Great Britain has been already estab-
lished. The army is to be commanded by Eng
lish officers, not only the treasury but the Khe-
dives administration is to be managed by an |
English mister, and there is possibility that |
the police force in the cities will be headed by
English constables. Cairo is practically to be
rights of the Khedive and the Sultan may be.
This administrative ascendancy, which Is |
strictly forbidden by the Clayton Bulwer ,
treaty. is recognized in the proposals for the |
Suez Canal, inasmuch as "the recurrence of an J
emergency resembling the late rebellion is
provided for hy clause excepting rosasures |