New-York tribune., 1883-12-21
THE CLAFTON-BULWER TREATY..
A LETTER BY MR.. FRELINGHUYsEN.

THE NIcARAGUAN INTERocEANIc cANAL.-CoLoNI
ZATION.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 20.-A letter of Secretary
Frenghuysen TO Mr. Lowell dated November o. 1888
in relation to the CaytonBulwer Treaty made public
to-day The principal points Of the letter are as follows
Granville to her Britannia Maestys Minister at washing
ton, dated August IL, 1883 Lord Granville says
FIRST because the first seven articles OF the treaty
route oy and secondly because Great Britain has at
the present day a colony instead of settlement at
the fact that this Government also holds that for the
purposes OF obtaining the then needed capital
United States were willing to surrender part Of their
exclusive privileges in canal by that route and
also willing to agree that by subsequent treaty stpua
tlon they would Join with Great Britain in the protection
OF the then proposed ehuanepec Panama. other inter
ing failed the treaty s vodabe as to the Nicaraguan
route and as to the other routes
by the convention within which such interoceanc
municatons were TO be made. While this statement
canal was about to be constructed the time treaty
negotiated and that the survey therefore was then
dc, and that brtytbree years have elapsed without
Great Britain rendering the consideration on which the
treaty was based and this failure we think aheGts the
to give the consideration within definite tme had one
been fixed by the convention would have affected It. Ihe
treaty provides that neither the United States nor Great
Britain shall colonize or exercise any dominion over any
part OF Central America. t Is % claimed med tna
ulary organized British colony in Central America while
1t does not prohibit the United States from having any
possession or colony there.
The meaning OF declaration think is that a mere
settlement OF British subjects for the purpose Of cutting
mahogany aud lOgwood at Honduras, under Spanish
American sovereignty not to be considered British
colony and thus be violation OF the treaty. and fail TO
how, since the exchange OF the Publications OF the
treaty, the organization or colony with fll colonial
upon as authorized allowed either by the treaty by
Sir Henry Buwers declaration The two contracting
equally bound not 10 cOOnze any part OF Cen
tra America and the declaration itself Of Sir Henry Bal
not being the exception OF territory Ia Central
America from the operation Of the treaty. but providing
in effect that the settlement should not be considered
British colony, tended to strengthen. and to
destroy the mutual obligation not to COLOMBO In Central
America.
Lord Granville Is correct in saying that stated in my
instruction to you OF May ), 1882 tnat Her Majestys
Government not called upon either 10 admit or deny
the views there expressed TO the Monroe Doctrine ana
this for the there given, to wt-because
Her Maestys Government placed s claim to join ln the
bini certainly modified the Monroe Doctrines but the
fact that this Government for promised consideration
modified by treaty what is called the Monroe DOct rne
think does In any affect that doctrine atter
the treaty has fallen because OF its infractiOn and
because OF the failure OF the consideration contemplated
In the conclusion cf this discussion you may say To Lord
Granville that this Government fully appreciates the I'M
pOranCe to Great Britain Of an uuOhstUCtcd and rapid
access from ocean 10 ocean, and has disposition % I'M
pcde Great Britain in the enjoyment OF such an access
and that this Government believes that the two nations
will in due time reach satisfactory OlutOn OF the ques
tons that have been considered in this correspondence