Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-12-21
THE MONROE DOCTRINE.
SECRETARY FRELINGHUYSEN CON-
CLUDES THE DISCUSSION.


The Agreement Voided by EngIand's
Failure to Garry Out the Provisions
on which it was Based-The Monroe
Doctrine Not Affected-A Solution of
the Difficulty Predicted.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20.-The following
letter of Secretary Frellnghuysen, formal
ly concluding the long-pending discussion
of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, was made
public to-day:
DEPARTMENT OF STATE.
WASHINGTON, Nov. %, 1881
James Russell LOaseH, Esq. london, Eng:
SIR enclose herewith a copy of an instrue-
tion from Lord Granville to Her Britannic
Majesty's Minister in Washington, dated
August H. 1883, copy Of which was handed me
by Mr.. West, and which is in reply
to my 56s to you of May 5, 1888, on the subject
of the Clayton Bnlwer treaty. You will OBJ
serve that Lord Granville saws "that Mr.
Frelinghuyson still contends that the CLAYTON
Bulwer treaty is YOidable on two grounds.
First. because the first seven articles of the
treaty related to particular canal by the
Nlcaraguan route only; aud, secondly be-
cause Great Britain has at the present day a
colony instead of settlement at Belize" Lord
Granville's attention should be called to the
fact that this government not only holds the
position TO which he has referred
but also holds, as stated to you
and May 5, 1888, that for the purpose Of OBJ
tanning the then needed capital to construct
an inter-oceanic canal by the Nicaraguan
route the United States were willing to sur
render part of their exclusive privileges in
the canal by that route, and We're also VIII
ing to agree that by a subsequent treaty stlp-
ulation they would join with Great Britain
in the protection of the then proposed Te-
huantepec, Panama or other inter-Oceanic
communication, and that consider alton hav-
ing f9lled the treaty is voidabe as to the
Nicaraguan route. and as to the other routes.
Lord Granville raises the point that ''nO
time was fixed by the convention within which
such lnter-oceanlc communications were to
be made" While this statement is correct
it is also true that it was contemplated that
the canal was about to be constructed at the
time the treaty was negotiated, aud that the
survey therefor was then made, and that 30
years have elapsed without Great Britain
rendering the consideration on which the
treaty was based, and this failure, we
think, affects the treaty in the same manner
that failure by Great Britain TO give con-
sideration within a definite time, had one
been fixed by the conv ention, would have
enected It,. The treaty provides that neither
the United States nor Great Britain shall
colOnize or exercise any dominion over any
part of Central America. This was the most
important provision. It is one of cluster
restraining one nation from having any ad-
vantage over the other in regard to the policy
of the canal, such as provisions against
alliance, against occupation and fertilization,
and against taking advantage of any in
timacy or influence, and yetit is claimed that
the treaty does not prohibit the existence Of q
large, regularly organized British colony in
Central America. while il does prohibit
the United States from having any possession
or colony there. The color for this claim is
that while the stipulation that neither of the
two governments should colonize any part OF
Central America is the most conspicuous
declaration, Sir Henry Bulwer, prior to the
exchange of the ratification of the treaty.
states that Her Majesty does not understand
the engagements of that convention TO apply
to Her Majestys settlement at Honduras, or
its defenses. This declaration can't be held
to authorize subsequent colonization by Her
Najesty's Government of territory as large
as three of smaller States.
The declaration was made, not to change or
vary the treaty, but ont of abundant caution
that it might not be misunderstood. Themes
ing of the declaration, we think, is that mere
settlement OF British subjects for the purpose
of cutting mahogany and logwood at HOndu-
ras under Spanish American sovereignty,
was not to be considered British colony and
thus be a violation of the treaty, and fail to
see how, since the exchange of the ratiflca-
tions of the treaty, the organization of a
colony, with a full colonial government. under
British sovereignty, can be looked upon as
authorized or allowed, either by the treaty or
by Sir Henry Bulwer's declarations. The two
contracting powers are equally bound not to
cOlonize any part OF Central America. and the
declaration itself of Sir Henry Bulwer not be-
ing an exception of any territory in Central
America from the operation OF the treaty, but
pravidng in effect that a settlement should
not be considered British colony, tended to
strengthen and not to destroy the mutual OBJ
legation not to colonIze in Central America
Lord Granville is correct in saying that |
stated in my instructions to you of May s,
1882, that Her Majesty's Government was not
called upon either to admit or deny the views
therein expressed as to the Monroe doctrine,
and this was so for the reason there given, to
wit: Because Her Majesty's Government
placed its claim to join IN the protection of
the inter-oce2nic canal on the treaty which,
il binding, certainly modified the Monroe
doctriBe, but the fact that tins government
for promised consideration modified by the
treaty what il called the Monroe doctrine, l
think, does not in any manner effect
fallen, because of its lnfraction
and because of the failure of the considera-
tiOn contemplated. / observe that Lord
Granville says that Her Majesty's Government
have reached the conclusion that prolonga-
tiOn of this discussion is not likely to lead to
any practical result, and also says that Great
Britain has large colonial possessions and
means of unobstructed and rapid access from
the Atlantic to the Pacific a matter Of the
greatest Importance to Great Britain. In
conclusion of this discussion. YOU may say
to Lord Granville that this government fully
appreciates the Importance TO Great Britain of
an unObstrueted and rapid access from ocean
to ocean, and has no disposition, as stated in
my instructions to you of May 8, 1882, to inn
pede Great Britain in the enjoyment of such
an access, and that the government believes
that the two nations will in due time reach a
satisfactory solution of the questions that
have been considered in this correspondence.
You may read this instruction to Lord
Granville and leave a copy of it with hIm
should he desire it. ! am, etc,
FRED'K I. FRELINGHUYsEN.
=