New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-12-22

n growing apprehension that an extra session
NAV he necessary. There is still no certainty
whether the coming President viii use hlo III
duence 10 encourage or to prevent tarlll aga
tation. Under such circumstances, II Is DOM
remarkable and encouraging that the emu"
easements of business have not proved more
serious than they have been up TO this 'i'ho'
NFUTP4LJTY and NEUTR4LIZAUON
Writers ON international law are careful 10
distinguish between neutrality and neutrallza-
tion The principle of neutrality rs applied to
an interoceanic canal opens IL 10 Ihe 'eS7e's VI
all nations. war-ships included, ana prohlDl.s
belligercnts from making it the base OF hostic
operations. The principle OF Naturalization
when rigidly construed excludes vessels OF wal
at all times. Belgium under European Ia"
offers perfect illustration OF naturalization.
If an interoceanic canal were to be noutralizeu
in that sense. il would he closed in peace ana
war against war ships and transports.
The Suez Canal has been d, AIRED, IN hrmah
,,.on,oJ hv thc Khodiye to the French company
in 1876 and sanctioned by the Sultan, to be
oman at all times IA "A neutral passage to the
merchant ships of all nations. This Is very
vague definition of neutrality ana docs ho'
EXEMPT either the canal or It's approaches from
military or naval operations. The SuoA company
has freely admitted vessels of wal ana troop
shinsn thenaymont of tolls, and consequently
IN, canal has never been ncutrHlized III tho an
soluto sense IN which Belgium Is neuiIaliaed
Great Britain resisted all attempts To nave the
Grmnu sanctioned by International action hh'i'
Euynt MAS conquered by Lord Wo'seloy, "
a. and IN
the banks, violating the principle oi hchtlhl'F
aud establishing precedent Whleh Americana
are NOT likely 10 forget, u stationed ENfflaohH
IA the country through which the 'nhh' i'hFsHH'
and apparently made preparations fol petma'
ncnt occupation. Whom English supremacy
had boon occurred. lord Granville offered pro
poanla Ia the Powers loi the future regulation
OF the canal
rhrao oighl rules nnhmllcd 10 Europe have
NAT hnen formally sanctioned by 81 inter
national council and having the clrct oi ten
totivc proposals.. are oi no binding force. The
,rptlnlious provide for the free passage ol
ships prohibit the landing OF troops
and munitions of war from the canal
in time of war. forbid the forti-
Gcaion of the channel or the entrances limit
,ho po,iol during which bcligcrrnt vessels may
remain in the canal in time of war, aud exclude
hostilirics from the channel and lis approaches
One rule STIMULATES that tn 'ae prohibitions shall
not npplv to measures which may be necessary
for the defence of Egypt. thus practically allow
ing England 10 repeat the tactics ~ the iaSt cam
nnien and to make the canal the base oi military
nperaiinns This cannot be considered a schclnc
ul mentality. international action un tina
bnsis would hc lit,lr lees than farce, 10 long
"a EneiH,d gniiiauna Egypt aud cohitola the
khrdivps administration. " IA ~ TAU rn'srHsoh
or tho AnrS Canal, II iaan English di'rh ahh
nnj a fou aud neutral arm oi the Hrh "a i"i
naturalization, Il Il oul ol Tho lurHlioii, me
tngish sariisnnz aie oh the sinnhh' u ihnf
arc ever Withdrawn England VIII lnhlaI upon
having the privilege ol sendmg them bach ahu
of using the canal rs base at operations II IL
shall bccome necessary to defend Egypt.
The neutrality of the Suez Canal Is simply a
Diplomatic fiction Practically there Is no such
thing. There is no international agreement on
the subject and England with It's navy ana
Egyptian garrsOns Is master OF the situation.
Americans will not be unwilling to accept
neutrality Of this sort as the practical rule Tor
the Nicaragua Canal. They will insist upon
controlling the canal and upon defending 1t
precisely rs England has defended the Suez
Canal. International action is unnecessary,
since this will not be an arm of the sea like the
Straits Of Gibraltar, but an American water
way, constructed with Government money and
conducted as an American enterprise. a. for
the Clayton-B ulwer treaty, the scheme OF ncu-
trality therein outlined is clearly impractcabe.
II is not cn0ught0 exempt from blockade, deten-
ton or capture vessels within Che channel and
its approaches, and to guarantee the neutrality
of the canal The United States must be at
liberty to defend both the canal and the terri
tory traversed by it. II must be allowed TO
exercise it, discretion respecting the passage
of ships OF war, and IN view Of the naval
ornaments Of European Powers it must retain
the privilege of fortifying the entrance ports.
England, 10 be sure. does not fOrtlfy the en-
trance port. of the Suez Canal. But there Is
an English army in Egypt, and by means of Il
powerful Icrt the approaches II the canal are
always guarded. The American Navy is now
ONLY the substance Of things which patriotism
hopes for. 1t has no existence on the water
TO dig an intcroceanic canal without building
forlfcatOns or a powerful feet to defend it
would be 10 constitute England the custodian
Of the neutrality Of the waterway. The United
states in guaranteeing the freedom and ncu-
trallty of the canal must be prepared to enforce
its rights OF defence and protection.
---------~-----~------
DdhOT1.
The passage of the hill for the organization