New-York tribune., 1885-01-27
TIE NICARAGUA TREATY.

Senator Edmunds defended the Nicaraguan
treaty last week in a speech long enough to
consume many hours of the executive sessions
of the Senate on different days. The grounds
upon which he advocates the treaty i'll so far as
they are known seem to be contradictory and
mutually destructive. His reported positions
may be briefly stated:
First, that the ClaytonBulwer treaty is not
binding upon this Government.
Second, that the Nicaragua treaty does not
violate the provisions of the Clayton -Bulwer
treaty.
Third, that no matter if the Nicaragua treaty
does violate the ClaytonBulwer treaty, 1t
would be worth any kind of a controversy with
England-even war itself-to maintain the
former.
Now all this is painfully like the old and oft
quoted story of the copper kettle: First, the
borrower averred that the kettle was cracked
when he got it; secondly, he returned it in as
good condition as he received it thirdly, he
had never borrowed the kettle at all.
One of Mr. Edmundss grounds of argument is
the somewhat unworthy and indefensible one OF
the State Department, to the effect that the
treaty with Nicaragua is not in conflict with our
obligations under the ClaytOn-B -Bulwer treaty
and therefore does not violate it. III that argu-
ment be true, then the conclusion is Irresistible
that our Government is going forwa rd to eX-
pend from its own Treasury two or three hun
dred millions of dollars in the construction OF a
canal which is to remain under the joint control
of England and the United States according to
the terms of the Clayton Bulwer treaty.
q II we take the other horn of the State Depart
ment dilemma and insist that the Clayton
Bulwer treaty is no longer binding, we certainly
ought to have that point definitely settled be-
fore the canal is built. Otherwise we shall be
investing our money under a disputed title. 1t
will be far wiser to come to an understanding
with the British Government before We invest
our money. Then, if we cannot agree, we can,
if we choose, with frankness and boldness de-
nounce the treaty, and proceed to bnild the
canal.
The whole argument in the case may indeed
be condensed in one short syllOgism The pend
ing treaty with Nicaragua is in conflict with the
Clayton Bulwer treaty, or it is not. If it is in
conflict. then we voluntarily break our faith
| and have a diplomatic trouble with England.
If it is not in conflict, then we build the canal at
our own cost and leave to England the right of
| joint control.
The original design of the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty was that the two Governments should be
equally responsible in every way for the con-
struction of the canal and should after its COM
petion have joint and equal control. 1t now
looks as if the State Department and Mr.. Ed
munds were bent Oh having the United States
assume the whole cost OF the enterprise and
leave Great Britain still in full possession of her
| right of Joint control. A Vermont horse jockey
who never heard of international law would be
shrewd enough to see that his distinguished
Senator was proposing bad bargain.
No one, we presume, has any fear that Great
Britain would resort to hostile measures if we
should fatty violate every provision OF the
Clayton Buwer treaty. She could get even
with us much more easily and much more
cheaply than by gong to war; She would
bluster little, no doubt, for the purpose Of en-
phasizing what she would term our bad faith,
and would undoubtedly injure us in interna-
tional public opinion. When too late we might
find that in releasing Great Britain from the OBJ
legations of the Clayton Bulwer treaty we
should have lost more than we gained