New-York tribune., 1884-12-19
40 EnN ElAII lEEIffFN


FHE FB9 flA4f ffkifffS
TUs 1EHr&E, aiiL4ArN ii'e il'at NfH .i"rr'
"a paulish ,he iNii ie&t 0i Gas N'r"fartN q ''f
and ,ha Rle5Idente pessasf haa "4' "lw'' N
nreludge tbi5 great question ot National iflitf.
il purposes to discuss ii IN AL lis phases VAN
dclibcmlon and without peiudice' and app ais
to tbe Drcss of the country 10 follow the same
course. This is not question ot politics. b"'
of American policy aud National honor ANA II
should be discussed on broad lines ana III
spirit of enlightened patriotism.
Both the treaty and the message are silent
on two important points: the bearings OF the
Clavton- -Bulwer convention and the neutral-
zation of the canal. What is lett
unsaid has not been passed over
without reconciliation and the text
of the treaty when read between the lines par
tally explains the omissions In order 10 be
clearly understood we shall refer specifically to
some of the more important clauses OF the
ClaytOn-Bulwer convention. The purpose or
that treaty was TO determine the relations OF
Great Britain and the United States to snip
canal by way of Nicaragua, Costa Rica or any
mart of Central America. Now, while both Mr..
Blaine and Mr.. Frelinghuysen have practically
opened the way for the abrOgation OF this streaty,
one on broad and the other on technical grounds,
it NAV be still recognized as an international
compact with provisions in relation to an
interoceanic canal and naturalization bind
ing upon both Governments. Unless Mr.
Frelinghuysen has reached some understand
ing with Lord Granville on this subject
in recent negotiations, he would be
forced to adopt one of two eXpedlents ::
either to abrogate the Clayton-Bu Treaty,
on the ground that Great Britain has already
violated its provisions, or else to avoid open
conflict with that convention by technlcalitles
demonstration in the new treaty. The latter
seems to be his choice of evils.
The Clayton -Bulwer Treaty provides (1)sthat
neither Great Britain nor the United States
shall obtain or maintain exclusive control over
anv interoceanic canal in Central America (2)
that neither Power shall erect or maintain forti-
fcations commanding the same, nor exercise
any dominion over territory; (3) that neither
Power shall make use of any protectOrate or al
lance for the purpose of fortifying, colonizing
or occupying territory; and (4) that neither
| Power shall use its influence with any state or
| Government for the purpose of acquiring or
| holding for its citizens or subjects any
| rights or advantages in regard to commerce
or navigation which shall not be offered to the
| citizens or subjects of the other Power on the
same terms. Now careful reading of the
| text of the new treaty indicates that these Obi-
| cations have been borne i'll mind and possibly,
rather slilfully evadcd The United States
| Government % does not obtain an exclusive,
but Joint control over the canal; (2) it does
not secure the privilege of erecting fortilica-
,ions nor of exercising sovereignty over terri
| tory (3) II does not make use of the proposed
proiectofnic or alliance for the purpose of for
tifvine, coloniaing or occupying territory; aud
| 90 the general rights aud advantages in regard
to commerce Uf navigation are practically OF
fetpd 10 British and American shipping oi
| tho same terms. albeit one article seems IA
mako sone discrimination aud ~ require
nilhe, explanation 90 modification, The tive
| treaties arc directly ahihgonsIic ~ thrif Erh'
oral effects, but they are aso open 10 technical
| constructions of which an Ingenious use may
| be- made in diplomatic correspondence,
The same remark applies equally we'll to the
| important question OF naturalization. The
| CLAYTON BulWer treaty declares that vessels oi
the United States or Great Britain shall III ease
of war be exempt from blockade or capture III
the canal or within certain distance OF either
entrance and that both Powers shall guarante {
the neutrality and freedom of the canal. The
new treaty is silent respecting the free dom and
naturalization of the canal, and does not
stipuate for the erection and maintenance
| of Notifications at the entrances of the
canal. This point we are anxious to emphasize,
since we inadvertently stated yesterday that
under the treaty the American Government
would occupy position at variance with Eu-
repean canOns Of naturalization Practically, il
must do SO; for if the Government advances
the money constructs the canal and controls it
as a Joint owner and moreover is under obiga-
tions to defend Nicaragua from invasion, it
must eventually have the right of fortifying
the entrances and of closing the channel at lis
discretion against foreign vessels of war. This
is the ONLY rational course for the Government
to follow, and the reconstruction Of the navy
will be the inevitable result of the ratification
of the treaty. Although this point is OF the
gravest importance, the treaty is silent respect
| ing the conditions of naturalization. This 81
lence can only be explained by the reluctance
| of tho Government either to accept or to anta9