Northern tribune. [volume] (Cheboygan, Mich.) 1875-1885, 1884-12-25
The Nicaragua Treaty.
From the Philadelphia Press.

From the Philadelphia Press.
The treaty proposed by our govern
ment with the government of Nicaragua
cannot, in our opinion, be judged from
the standpoint of an ordinary treaty. 1t
is bold and decided step on the part of
the administration to settle, once for all,
the right of the United States to control
the ever widening trade and CONNIE rec
of the American continent. The eOnsid-
Grafton of the subject should rise above
party politics and deserves the broadcast
national treatment we are capable Of
giving a question in which we are likely
to have two of the most powerful ma
tiOns-England and FraRcs-allied
against us.
Our readers have long been familiar
with the history of the Nicaragua canal
project, which has eliminated in the
proposed treaty of November %. Before
our Independence was recognized by
Great Britain her subjects had seen the
future Importance of selling and hold
ing a canal route by the way of the San
Juan River and Lake Nicaragua. A Sc
cret survey was made in 1850, and Lord
Nelson, then captain in the British ma
ivy, attempted to hold the country, but
was defeated by the Spaniards and ma
tives. The first scheme for canal seems
to have been started by Louis Napoleon,
when prisoner at Ham, and charter
was granted in 1916, to the Canal NapO-
leon de Nicaragua, but the scheme fell
through. In 1848 the British, in open
defiance of the Monroe doctrine, seized
the port of San Juan de Nicaragua. This
led to the so-called Clayton and Bulwer
treaty, which declared that neither the
one nor the other nation will ever OBJ
tain or maintain for itself any exclusive
control over the said ship canal, agree.
ing that neither will ever erect and
maintain any Notifications commanding
the same, or in the vicinity thereof, or
occupy. or fOrtify, or COLOMBO, or assume,
or exercise any dominion over Nicarag-
ua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito Coast, or
any part of Central America"
Great Britain, of course, will continue
to claim that this treaty cannot be set
aside, and she will denOuAce the present
treaty as violation of the plighted faith
of the United States. France will also
oppose it because her capitalists are al
ready constructing the Panama canal.
In making this treaty the United States
government has taken the ground that
we alone are to control this route, and
that European interference Will not be
tolerated on this continent. There is no
intermediate position. We must either
accept the treaty and build the canal, or
suffer it to be built by the capital Of
some ether nation. The capital that
builds it will centred it. No sensible man
will deny this. Can the United States
government afford thus to humiliate it.
self before the nations OF the worldp Had
it not been for the financial depression
and certain failures, private American
enterprise would, by this time, have be-
gun the work. That is out of the ques-
ton now. Much as we have deprecated
another treaty made by the present adj
ministration, we believe the position of
the government on the Nicaragua treaty
is right and is American. Believing
this and believing that tae national hon
or, the national pride, the national man
hood, as we'll as vast national interests
are at stake. We enjoin our legislators to
treat this Isthmian question with firm
ness and determination, and not under
any circumstances to permit the nation