The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1894-07-18
THE NICARAGUA CANAL.
HOUSE COMMITTEE WILL REPORT
FAvORABLY.
Its Action Criticised From a Republican
Standpoint-what the "ChronicIe"
Thinks.

the House Committee on Interstate and
/ Foreign Commerce has agreed to report
the bill to aid in the construction of the
Nicaragua canal The bill which has
already been discussed, provides for the
issuance of $7O,000,00O of bonds, for
which the United States will receive
stock, which will practically give our
Government control of the company.
Nicaragua and Costa RIGA are to be
associated with the United States as
principal stockholders.
A telegram from New York of the
same date states that John r. Bartlett,
the President of the canal company,
has received cable from Managua, the
capital of Nicaragua, saying that the |
Nicaraguan Government has withdrawn
all opposition.
From these two dispatches we may
reasonably conclude that the project |
will now be carried forward with reas-
enable speed. There is little doubt that
the bill will pass Congress and receive
the approval of the President.
lhC VI llt
recommending the passage of the bill
enters into an elaborate discussion of
the immense advantages which will
accrue to the United States from the
obvious matters have been gone over so
often that we need not repeat or COM
ment upon the arguments and illustra-
tions. The report, which was prepared
by Representative Mallory of Florida,
also touches upon the application OF the
Clayton Bulwer treaty to the canal.
This part of the report is of deep inter-
est as indicating the probable views of
the Democratic majority of the House
and most likely OF the Administration.
In matters affecting our foreign rela-
tions it is the custom of Congressional
committees to accept suggestions from
the State Department.
While the report of the committee
recommending the passage of the bill is
to be commended, we are bound to say
that the discussion of the Clayton-Bul-
wer treaty is exceedingly weak, hating
and unsatisfactory. Referring to the
fact that many Of our ablest public men
have contended that the treaty was long
since abrogated, the committee say that
it would seem to be advisable to modify
the treaty, if it does still exist, in such IA
manner as to remove the cause of the
controversy, rather than to insist upon
its total abrogation.
This suggestion will not receive the
Endorsement of those patriotic Ameri-
cans who seriously believe in maintain
ing the Monroe doctrine.
Summing the discussion up, the COM
mittee say that whether the treaty is in
existence or not they are firm in the be-
lief that there is nothing in the bill re-
ported which Is contrary to or violative
of any article of that treaty. That
while Article of the treaty pledges the
two nations not to do anything with the
canal and territory bordering on it
which will SAVIOR of sovereignty, or at
tempt to exclude citizens or subjects of
one from advantages enjoyed by the
other, nevertheless the control of the
canal, subject to these conditions and
within these limitations is permitted to
either power.
Now, this is not only special pleading
of the most contemplate character, but
it is an absolutely erroneous statement
of the terms of the treaty, and is, be-
sides, a most foolish and even danger.
GUS admission of what the United States
would concede to Great Britain. SO far
from our recognizing the right of Eng
land to gain control of the canal subject
to the limitations stated, we would not
for one moment concede that right.
But as to the treaty.
Article bound each party in terms
not to obtain for itself any exclusive
control over the ship canal which was
the object of the treaty, and never to
assume or exercise any dominion over
Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Mosquito
coast or any part of Central America.
For the House Committee to say now
that the United States may gain ex-
elusive control of the canal, provided
British subjects are permitted to enjoy
I its advantages, is simply childish.
" 1t would be far more manly and
straightforward to say, as other Ameri-
can statesmen have said, that the treaty
has become void by non-user. 1t would
have been still more commendable to
have inserted a section in the bill re-
pealing the treaty in terms. That Con-
gress may do SO is no longer debatable
u question.
1t has been uniformly maintained by
our State Department that the treaty is
e clearly voidable at the option OF the
e United States upon the ground of fail
ure OF consideration. When the treaty
was negotiated in 1850 there was dis
tinct understanding, though not ex-
= pressed in the text, that England should
assist in building the canal.
But on broader.groundsc congress ought
y to openly abrogats the treaty. Let us
?, have an affirmative and specific Monroe
B. doctrine. We should not only say that
England shall not have a partnership
interest in the canal, but that neither
l. England nor any other European power
It shall be permitted any foothold or in.
ar fiuence on the American continent
south of our territory. This is what tn,
~ Monroe doctrine means as the American
people understand 1t to-day.