The Dalles daily chronicle. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1890-1948, 1895-04-29

under the circumstances. In this case,
the length of the stay of the British at
Corinto is problematical, conditional, as
it is, upon collecting enough revenue,
from customs to make good the indem-
nifty demanded.
But another consideration arises at
this point, for our government has been.
assured that the occupation will not be
permanent, and, indeed, the first para
graph OF the Clayton-Bulwer treaty ex-
pressly pledges Great Britain against
occupation of Nicaraguan territory. So
the problem will arise, how to collect the
indemnify within a reasonable time.
This may be settled summarily by sim
ply extending the occupancy and block
ade beyond Corinto, so as to include all
of the Pacific ports of Nicaragua. From
the disposition shown by the Nicara-
guans at present, this can be done only
by force, and is likely to add very largely
to the expense incurred in the collection
of the indemnity, which items will
surely be added by the British to the
original sum. This course, moreover,
will seriously embarrass the commerce.
of the United States, and on this point
Great Britain has given Secretary Gres-
ham certain assurances of the manner in
which the British may be sure of attain
ing their ends by a prompt declaration
of war and an invasion of Nicaragua, in
volving the capture of the capital, Ma
nagua, and the imposition upon the
Nicaraguans of the British terms as the
price of peace.
1t may be that the British government
will be driven to the latter course IN the
interest of trade, our own as well as that
of her own merchants, which she is
bound to safeguard. If goods entered at
Corinto, after payment of duty to the
French occupants, should be seized in
the interior, the owners, British or
American, would have every claim for
reparation. The only question is as to-
whose duty it would be to secure this !;
whether the United States would feel
bound to intervene in the case of an
American merchant IN such case, and
therein lies one of the features which
may involve our country directly in the
dispute.
It has been asserted as hard and fast
rule of international law that duties can
not be twice collected, and our own gov
eminent has taken an advanced position
on this question: At one time, when
the diplomatic relations between Great
Britain and Mexico were interrupted
and a revolutionary movement was in
progress in the latter country, British
ship, entering one of the revolutionary
ports of Mexico, paid duties upon her
goods to the insurgents. Afterward the
Mexican government again assessed the
duties upon the same goods, holding
the Insurgents had no authority to make
the first collection, and refusing to re-
cognize it. The British minister, Sir
Edward Thornton, appealed to our
country, Great Britain having no repre-
sentative in Mexico, to secure the re-
lease of the goods from this imposition.
We acted very promptly and obliged the
Mexicaps to release the goods and to
acknowledge the principle that the
duties cannot be twice levied.
This case differs in many important
features from the present one, the clio.
cure of Corinto. and it is difficult to as
certain the application of international
law in this case, although the general
broad principle would seem to be simi-
lar. - -