Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1885-03-02
AN IMPORTANT LETTER
From Secretary Frelinghuysen Concern.
ing the Nicaraguan and Clayton
Bulwer Treaties.
WASHINGTON, March |

WASHINGTON, March l.
letter written by Secretary Frelinghuv-
sen in explanation and support OF the Nicara-
guam treaty, with especial reference appar-
emily to newspaper criticisms upon it, is made
public today. The letter is addressed 10 SEN
ator Miller, chairman of the Senate commit
tee on foreign affairs. The secretary in dis
cusslng the Clayton-BuIwer treaty, SAYS:
1.-The Clayton Bulwer treaty, like any SIM
liar document. was a contract obligatory upon
one of the parties in the case of default or
violation OF its provisions by the other"
The secretary then briefly reviews the cir
cumstances under which the Clayton Buwer
treaty was entered into, and says: THE
treaty was signed April 10, 1850, more than
"a years ago. 1t had no clause limiting its
duration, but the fact that one of the con-
tracing parties has not during this long peri
cd fulfilled the obligations imposed upon it
as consideration for the share in the canal
grant, would alone be sufficient to authorize
the other to terminate its contract. The United
States agreeing not to occupy or coloniZe any
part of Central America, have strictly OBJ
served the obligation they assumed Ii cannot
be denied that Great Britain, on the contrary,
has converted the settlement of licensed wood
cutters under Spanish A merican jurisdiction
into political appendage of the British gov
ernment Her Majesty's government has en-
tirely neglected to evince any intention of
fulfilling the provisions of the treaty of 1850.
No offer has been made to aid in the con
struction of the canal nor has any intention
been manifested in removing the British
political control from Beliz, or restoring its
territory to the Spanish American States
which, in 1850, there had political jurisdic-
tan. Turning to the treaty with Nicaragua,
it is not apparent wherein that instrument
before the Senate conflicts with the provis-
ions of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, if the
latter was principally intended to carry out
its object by guaranteeing protection to capi
tai of private citizens or subjects of con-
tracing nations.
The arrangement with Nicaragua is en-
trely different. for no private capital is to be
invested. Contracting governments alone
are interested, and the Cayton-Bulw treaty
cannot apply to it unless that treaty should be
so modified by new and specific mutual agree
ment as to admit Great Britain to partnership
in the enterprise.
The Nicaraguan treaty now before the
Senate is not violation of the treaty with
Great Britain, for the latter contemplates
private ownership, while the former is a gov
ernmental enterprise without political control
intended for open communication between
the two oceans without discrimination in
favor of any nation.
The secretary reviews the provisions of
the treaty and says: "The necessity for this
canal must be apparent The question pre-
sented, therefore, is whether it is to be bull:
by this county or some other. Any work of
this magnitude when owned by individuals
must necessarily be under practical control
of the government whose citizens are most
largely interested and whose rights and
property it must protect in case of attack or
threatened injury
In conclusion the secretary says: Refer
ring to the Nicaraguan treaty, the advantages
are manifold 1t intends to prevent alien
control or encroachment on this continent
from interfering in anv way with free and
independent sovereignty of Nicaragua and
without discriminating against other nations.
1t knits our country more closely together
by bringing the two coasts into easy commu-
nication by sea with each other. and gives us
numerous other advantages. Europe and
Asia are brought nearer together, and other
foreign countries are greatly benefited.