Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-01-28

THE ARBITRATION TREATY.


arbitration treaty between this country
and Great Britain. as first developed III
both Democratic and Republican sena-
torial circles was. I'm the man, ae-
cording 20 the Washington correspoh-
donts Of the most childish, not TO say
diseraceful. character Most Of the Demo
cratic senators who opposed rauilca-
t,on were. we are told. actuated by
desire to punish Mr.. Cleveland ana MI
Olncy. while Republican opposition was
due to the hope of carrying the matter
over until after the 4th Of March, next
so that the new administration might
get the credit for making the treaty an
accomplished fact.
But the majority of the leading papers
Of the country, irrespective OF party
combined In such vigorous remuneration
of these motives, that those iniiuenceu
by them seemed to become ashamed Oh
themselves. Anyhow, the talk Oh oo-
struction for the reasons named ceased
10 n great extent, and the opposition OF
the senatorial obstructionists was made
on new ground. This ground was that
the treaty put in jeopardy the Monroe
doctrine. generally-a contention that
found great favor with the lingo papers,
and by them was backed most persis-
tently.
However Mr.. Olney and other men of
equal prominence and weight, who had
given careful and profound study TO the
bearing OF the treaty upon the Monroe
doctrine. demonstrated very clearly the
fallacy Of the contention. whereupon the
obstructionists took refuge in the asser-
ton that as far as Great Britain is con-
cerned the sole object of the treaty was
to prevent the United States from get
ting exclusive control Of the Nicaragua
canal route.
In support Of this assertion, 1t Is
charged that Great Britain was behind
the protest against the canal bill OF the
minister of the Greater Republic of Cen
trail America, and that the United States
having affirmed, through two Of her Sec
retaries of State, that the Clayton-Bul-
wer treaty was imperative, John Bull
designs to render it operative in a round
vention.
In order to clearer understanding OF
these charges. it should be explained that
under the Clayton-Bulwer treaty both
governments agreed that neither would
attempt exclusive control over the canal,
and that neither would lever erect or
maintain any Notifications commanding
the same, or in the vicinity thereof or
occupy, or fortify, or colonize, or assume,
or exercise any dominion over Mica
ragua. Costa Rica, the Mosquito coast,
or any part of Central America" Il
was also agreed that neither would make
use of any protection which either af-
forded, or might afford, or any alliance
which either had or might have Ito or
with any people for the purpose of erect
ing or maintaining any such fortifica-
lions, or of occupying or colonizing Nj
caragua, Costa RIGA, the Mosquito coast
or any part Of Central America. or Of
assuming or exercising dominion over
the same"
The two Secretaries of State who de-
imperative were Mr.. Blaine and Mr..
Frelinghuysen-the formers declaration
being based upon the argument that the
conditions under which the treaty was
made had ceased to exist, and the lat
ter's upon the contention that Great
Britain had repeatedly violated the agree
ment.
If there is really anything in this last
position taken by the obstructionists, it
ought to be carefully looked into. The
Nicaragua canal, If ever built, must be
an American enterprise, and the posi-
bility Of Great Britain's forestalling that
contamination by the arbitration treaty
or otherwise should be zealously safe
guarded. Yet it must be said that, so far.
those who have brought the canal into
the question of ratifying the convention
have failed TO make out a case.