New-York tribune., 1884-12-20
ENGLISH CANAL PRECEDENTS.

The British Government IN dealing with the
Nicaragua treaty will naturally revert to Its
own policy respecting the Suez Canal. IL pur-
chased in 1876 fr0u the Khcdive 1862
shares of canal stock for something less than
10000, 900. The profits on these shares had
been alicnated as far in advance as 1894, but
interest on the purchase money at per cent
was guaranteed for the intervening period.
The British Government now receives about
81 .OO0, 900 annually from the Egyptian treas
ury in the form of interest. 1t owns two-htths
of the original shares of the French Company,
and by virtue of its proprietary rights Is the
business partner of NJ. de Lesseps and the
French and English stockholders. When it
became a Joint owner with them in the canal
enterprise it made a compact with the khe-
dive. but il did not consider itself under obllga-
tiOns to give any explanation to Europe OF It's
business investment.
What is the logical inference from this trans
action The British Government seems TO
have conceded the principle that any nation
may acquire. either by purchase or treaty, pro-
prietary rights in an interoceanic canal with
out the consent of other Governments. 1t will
be essentially a commercial transaction, the
Government making the investment at its own
risk and chiefly for its own advantage. Under
the Nicaragua treaty the United States will be-
come a Joint owner in the proposed canal, and
if the Suez precedent be followed, it will be an
investment with which Europe has no concern.
If England through bargain with the Khc-
dive owns two hiths of the waterway between
the Mediterranean and India. why cannot the
United States acquire by treaty a joint and
caual interest with Nicaragua IN the waterway
England has secured proprietary rights IN the
waterway which II did not construct certainly
the United States cah With equal ptDpiictN boz
rnnr n innt owner With Nicaragua IN n canal
Iaf Whleh Il agfpcs io furnish the entire capital,
Nav let the English precedent hn carried still
further, The snel Canal was declared nenual
on the authority oi the Sultan aud the kho-
dive IL was not neutralzed by international
action and has not been to this day, When an
emergency arose, an English fleet took posses
sion of the canal, an English army made its
banks the base of military operations, and an
English garrison to-day occupies the country
through which the waterway passes. There
was 10 international agreement on the subject,
and consequently these measures were not In
violation of European law. In like manner the
treaty with Nicaragua is silent respecting the
freedom and naturalization of the proposed
canal II the American Government constructs
the canal and agrees to defend the territory OF
Nicaragua, 1t ought to insist upon having the
same rights and privileges which England has
enjoyed in Egypt. AS international action
would only tend to embarrass the Government
in nm emergency, the canal ought neither to be
declared free nor neutralized.
There can be no better guarantee of the free
dom and security of the canal than the Ameri-
can protectorate. Mr.. Blaine admirably
pressed this view in his correspondence with
Lord Granville. "'rhe one conclusive mode"
he wrote of preserving any isthmus canal
q from the possible distraction and destruction
aof war is to place it under the control of that
Government least likely to be engaged in war,
and able in any and every event to enforce the
guardianship which it will assume" But Mr.
Blaine also maintained that the United States
must have the privilege of garrsOning the en-
frances Of the canal. and of occupying the ad-