Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-01-05

Panama before that treaty was m sde, and
that treaty could neither confer nor take
that power away. By a treaty with the
government Of the country, made in Deem
Der, 1916, the United States positively and
eficaciousIy" guarantee the perfect neutral
ity of the Isthmus of Panama to secure free
transit across it. Also the rights of sover-
eighty and property which the government
there possesses over the territory of the
iahmus. In the words Of congressional
document before US, "Any canal at Panama,
begun and built according 10 the stipulations
Of that treaty, and with the concurrence of
the United States, will be under the guar
antee and protection of the United States,
and Colombia can call for that guarantee
and protection" But the 6fty-6rst article
Of the bill before Congress abandons all this,
and puts the United States on the same
level as the European powers, although the
administrations Of Mr.. Hayes, Mr.. Garfield,
and that of Mr.. Arthur have claimed and as
sorted, in official form, the treaty rights of
this country. As late as May, 1882, our
government claimed that the Bulwer-Clayton
treaty related only to projects then pro-
posed TO be established; that the "Clayton-
BuIwer treaty is subject to the provisions of
the treaty Of 1885," and especially that
"there is no provision in the Clayton-BulWer
treaty which authorizes Great Britain to in
vite, or obliges the United States to accept, the
aid of other nations to protect or to gusran-
tee the neutrality of the Panama route" In
view Of this, our national claim to be clear
OF European interference on this continent,
ought Congress to-day bind itself, whenever
Nicaragus may think il Desirable 10 solicit
conventions for guarantees from the other
continent? In 1s49 convention was signed
by Nicaraguan authority,in the city OF Gus-
temals, which was not accepted by our
government. Had it been accepted it would
have conferred upon this country, exclu-
sively, the protection and defense of the
State and sovereignty Of Nicaragua. with
authority to employ naval and military force
to preserve the peace and maintain the
neutrality of that country. Our treaty Of
1867 with Nicaragua, however, gives the
United States the right Of transit through
any canal that may be constructed through
Nicaragua; the right to be held and enjoyed
in the same manner and to the same extent
as by Nicaragua itself. In May, 1882, the
present government asserted it to be Sun
necessary and unwise 10 invite the various
nations to guarantee the neutrality of the
transit Of the isthmur, or to give their ma
vies pretext for assembling in waters con-
tiguous to our shores, and possibly 10 in
volve this republic in conflicts from which
its natural position entities it to be relieved"
This single sentence ought to bar any such
stipulation as that contained in article 81 Of
the Nicaragua canal bill. If the United
States are 10 have co-guarantors, they should
be of sovereign powers on this contin emit
,nly, as having similar interests with our
lelves. Canada is colony, and would not
tome under this provision, nor England
through Canada, as Canada is not SOW
erign power.