St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-08-31


If 1t were not, it would be easy to dis
cover it's lack of evidence of ca
pacity; and without the approval of
these two nations, capital would not,
back up the foreign company that
obtained the concession. However,
the general principle sought to be,
established is more matter Of spec
ulative interest than Of present con-
Germ. The gist of the treaty is in the
provision that makes canal mat
ter Of mutual concern, involving joint
assent to any scheme for it's con-
struction. This is evident from the
following provisions:
'"The governments Of the United
States and Great Britain hereby de-
clare that neither the one nor the other
will ever obtain or maintain for itself
any exclusive control over the said
ship canal. agreeing that neither win
ever erect or maintain any Notifications
commanding the same, OF. in the vicin7
1ty thereof, or occupy or fortify, or
colonlZe, or assume or exercise any
dominion over Nicaragua, Costa Rica,
the Mosquito coast or any part of Gen.,
trail America; nor will either make
use of any protection which either af-,
lords or may afford, or any alliance
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,
certifying or coloniZing Nicaragua,
Costa RIGA, the Mosquito coast or any
part of Central America, or of assum-
ing or exercising dominion over the
same; nor will the United States or
Great Britain take advantage of any
intimacy, or use any alliance, connec-
ton or influence that either may pos
sess, with any state or government
through whose territory the said canal
may pass, for the purpose of acuuir-
ing or holding, directly or indirectly,
for the citizens or subjects of the
one any rights or advantages in re-
GARD to commerce or navigation.
through the said canal which shall
not be offered on the same terms to
the citizens or subjects of the other.''
That this is the placed,
then and now, on the treaty was
made evident by the discussion in
congress and in part of the British
press during the debates on the Mic
aragua guaranty bill in the senate.
The provisions giving our govern
ment majority in the board of.
directors, and the pledge of the prop
erty to secure the government for it's
guaranty of the bonds, implied a
present control and a probable fut-
ure ownership that conficted with
the idea of neutrality contained in
the treaty and the joint action pro-
V1ded for. 1t is not probable that the
British government would have in
terposed any objection to the pro-
posed share of our government in the
enterprise, contenting itself with the
stipulation that no rights should be
given the citizens of this country
that were not shared equally by
those of Great Britain But if i'm
probable it is not impossible. With
a jingo element seated for the next
seven years in control of that gov
eminent, and with clamorous lingo
element in our own country, serious
complications might arise were the
United States to take the course
provided in the Morgan bill.
That if the government has any
thing to do with the canal it must
build, own and operate it as a ma
tional enterprise, ASSOCIATED from
all private interests, is the position
the G o b has maintained from
the start. Our recent history is too
redolent Of the jobbery that follows
governmental guarantees of the cap
ital of private enterprises, to war
rant another experiment on the same:
vicious lines. We have paid or will
pay about $1OO,OGO,OOO for our expe-
rience in the Pacific railroads, and
it should not be thrown away. When
be by this government as such, and
not as guarantor of some jobbing-
promoters. But when this is under
taken, what help or hindrance to it
will this Clayton-Bulwer treaty be?
OF help, plainly none. Of hindrance,
it is pregnant with possibilities.
Suppose Salisbury should insist that
England share in the enterprise,
would he not find in this treaty justi-
fication for the demand? Would he
not insist that that was the general
principle" declared but not defined?
And could we afford to fight for our,
position?
What, then, is the only sensible and
prudent course? What but to alb
rogate the treaty that gives to US
no advantage and may plainly work
to our detriment? With it abolished,
Nicaragua would have no reason to
hesitate in vacating all former con-
cessions and making new one to
this government. No ground of OBJ
lection could be laid by England.
The question of the neutrality of the
canal, the common and equal use
of it on the same terms by citizens
of both countries, it's joint protec-
ton against other powers in case
of war, could all be made matter
of subsequent treaty if desirable;
but the power to obstruct would be
gone. These considerations are suffi-
cient to warrant the revocation of
the treaty which has accomplished
a part of what it was designed for,
the prevention of canal construction
by company not of either nation
ality.
A JUDGE ON JUSTICE
Seldom has a more admirable adj
dress upon the law and the defects