Los Angeles herald., 1892-06-19
THE NICARAGUA CANAL-rHR CLAYTON
.BULWRR TREATY.

Our esteemed contemporary, the Los
Angeles Tlmes, in its issue Of yesterday,
says that the endorsement, by the Re-
publican national convention, OF the
Nicaragua canal proposition. which Sem
ator Warner Miller has been advocat-
ing, is in contravention Of the Clayton
Bulwer treaty Of 1850, which is quoted
by our contemporary as follows:
The governments of the United States
and Great Britain hereby declare that
neither one nor the other will ever oc-
cupy or fortify or colonize or assume or
exercise any dominion over Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast or any
part OF Central America; nor will either
make use of any protection which
either affords, or may afford, or any al
lance which either has or may have to
or with any state or people for the pur-
pose of erecting or maintaining any
such Notifications, or OF occupying, fort
living or colonizing Nicaragua, Costa
Rica, the Mosquito coast or any part OF
Central America, or of assuming or ex-
ercising dominion over the same.
1t strikes us that the Times is quite
out Of the ordinary purview of legiti-
mate criticism in the position it has
assumed. 1t is very unfortunate cir
cumstance that under the occasional
control OF the government of the
United States by parties other than the
Democratic party, the interests of the
sovereign people have been frequently
given away. The year 1850 covered the
period in which New York detection
in the Democratic party turned over the
control of the government of the United
States to the Wing party. As the thing
turned out, the Whig party died in
electing General Taylor. Mr.. Millard
Fillmore, who succeeded General Tay-
lor, cut no figure whatever in the cleo
ton of 1862, in which Mr.. Franklin
Pierce, a Democrat from New Hamp-
shire, had the most remarkable walk
over ever recorded in the political hie-
tory of the United States.
1t is happy incident in the history
of the Democratic party that no ques-
tion has ever been considered by it
which compromised the standing of the
United States. The record of the Dem
ocratic party, from the days of Thomas
Jefferson down to those of Grover
Cleveland. has been that of acquisition
and not of surrender. The Clayton-Bul-
wer treaty was one of those clumsy dip
lomatic incidents for which the Demo
cratic party il in no sense responsible,
and as to which the Democratic Monroe
doctrine is memorable protest.
Notwithstanding the bungling char
acter of the diplomatic negotia-
tiona of the United States, ex-
cept when they have been controlled
under the inspiration of the patriotic
and heroic Democratic party, we think
that our contemporary, the Times, alto
gether mistakes the prism of the
Bulwer-Clayton agreement in rela-
ton to the project Of building
q ship canal between the wa
ters Of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
AS the proposition stands today it is
commercial scheme on exactly the
rclane Of the Suez canal wnen
Monsieur de Lssseps set out to
pierce the heart of the Egyptian
desert. 1t was then every one's game,
with the single exception that Monsieur
lie Lesseps had given an immense i'm
petus to great commercial exigency.
The men who propose to build the Mic
aragua canal have not the slightest no.
tion OF throwing up Notifications, or of
forcing new interpretations OF the Mon.
roe doctrine. There is no reason why
they should. They have a commercial
OF incommensurable signi6-
,ance, and all the signs lead to
the belief that its privileges will
be fully availed OF. The most
theatrical experience OF the checquered
life of Earl Beaconsfeld was that in
which be bought, in the open CONNER
cial markets OF the word, the controlling
interest of the Suez canal. The pro-
ectors of the Nicaragua canal are more
patriotic than we're Monsieur de Lesseps
and his associates. They propose to
make it impossible for any fortuitous
development of circumstances to leave
;he imperial people of the United States
)ut in the cold when this grand avenue
If the commerce of worlds shall be |
opened. !