Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1885-03-06

WNsHINGrON. March IA letter written
by Sccrctlry t'rclinghuyScn, in explanu-
tion and support OF the Ncaraguan treaty,
with special reference, apparently, to
newspaper criticisms upon it, ismade pub
lie today. The letter is addressed to Sen
ator Miller of California, chairman of the
Senate committee On toreiun relations.
The Secretary in discussing the Clayton
Buiwcr treaty sHy-: "Vhc Clayton .Bul-
wrr trCa Y, like any similar document.
was contract not obligatory upOn one of
the paroles in case Of default or violation
of its provisions by the other The Sec
retary then briefly review, the circum-
stances under which the Clayton Bulwcr
treaty was entered into amt says
"rhc treaty was signed April 10, 1850,
more than - years ago. 1t mad no clause
limiting it, duration, but the fact that one
OF the contracting parties mas not during
this long period fulfilled the obligation
imposed upon it, as the consideration for Il
share in the canal grant would alone be
sufficient to authorize the others to termi-
nate the contract The United States
agreeing not 10 occupy or CriOniZc any
part of Central America, have strictly
observed the obligation they assumed. 1t
cannot be denied that Great Britain, on
the contrary, has connected Il settlement
OF licensed wood cutters, urder Spanish
American jurisdiction, into IL political
appcndage of the British government.
Her Maiesty's government has entirely
neglected To eVinCe any intention of ful-
filling the provisions of the treaty of 1850,
which shows no offer has been made in
the construction of Il canal, nor has any
intention been manifested of removing
British political control from the Belize,
or of restoring its territory to the Spanish
American states. which, in 1850 had their
political jurisdiction. Turning to the
treaty with Nicaragua it is not apparent
wherein that instrument before the Sen
ate conflicts with the provisions of the
Claytun-BUlNcr treaty. If the latter was
principally intended 10 carry out its object
ny guaranteeing protection to the capital
OF private citizens or subjects of the con
tracing nations, the arrangement with
Nicaragua Is entirely different, for
no private capital Is to be invested, the
contracting governments alone are inter
csted, and the ClaytOu-Bulwer treaty can
not apply 10 il unless that treaty should
be 50 modified by Il new and specific mu-
tual agreement as to admit Great Britain
to partnership in the enterprise upon IL
contribution 10y that government to the
cost Of the work. No such modification
has been proposed and Great Britain has
refused already suggested changes IN the
instrument.
The first seven articles of the Clayton
lulNtG treaty DIONItlt Ill substance IOT Il
canal across Nicaragua, to be built by pr-
waite capital, under the joint protection of
this country and Great Britain. Her Ma
jesty's government has coutendel that by
article this principle is made continuous
and permanent. If this were admitted, ii
could not even then be held that after
waiting "a years and after full notice
the Culted States, violate the treaty by
doing alone what that instrument con
tenplated, should be done jointly. 1t is
nj least certain that the NiCaraGu an
treaty OF Dec. !, 1854, does not violate
the conditions rs to canal control laid
down in the Clayton BU.Wer treaty. BY
the treaty of December | no exclusive
control of the canal and no political CON
troll over the territory it traycrees Is OBJ
tanned 10y this government We dO not
ipltty, occupy. COLOMBO or assume To de
sire domination over any part Of Central
America. nor do We require any
exclusive concession Tor our citizens
(Which alone is prohibited by the
treaty OF $500 tor primarily no con
ccsSi III at all i, made, and secondly, what
ever rights ami capital may ne interested
are purely governmental. The position
a. 10 tine Clayton-Bulwer treaty may he
thus summarized: Great lirltan's rights
have lapscd by neglect ~ step has been
taken to fulfill her obligations under the
convention, nor has that government as
serted any claim to protect the Panama
railway nov passed under French control
on the De Lessepo canal project The
treaty is yoidable by II, because of it,
innactiun through the erection OF IA col
ouy in British ilonuuras. Tne Nicaraguar
treaty. now before the Senate, is not /
violation Of the treaty with Great Britain
for the latter CUntemplates private owner
snip. while the former is Il governmental
enterprise without political control, in
tended TO open water communication be
tween the two great oceans without dis
elimination in favor of any nation,