New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-02-04
ARBTTR AND TIE CANAL.

ARBITRATOR AND THE CANAL.
or all the specific objections thus far made
against The pending Arbitration Treaty with
| Great Britain the most serious is that II
/ would impcril American control of the Nicara-
qua Canal That if true might well I've
! deemed sufficient cause for radically amend
ing If not for rejecting. the treaty. This Nation
would not he pleased 10 see n canal connecting
! It's own Atlantic ana Pacific COASTS controlled
| in whole or in part by an alien Power. Whether
| such a canal should he constructed at all Is Il
! question open 10 fair dispute hut if il he con
! etructCd there is no doubt that it should be
! under the control of this country. whose in
! tcrests would he affected by it vastly more
/ than those of any and all other nations. 1t Is
| necessary therefore, to consider what bearing
| this treaty would or could have upon the con
! troll of the canal. Ex-senator Edmunds in IN
incisive discussion of The matter. holds that 1t
would have none For the treaty submits 10
arbitration nothing but "mattcrS in difference,
"in respect of which either of the high con-
tracing parties shall have rights against
'thc other; and. according To the legal dofnl-
ton of the term. Great Britain could claim no
rights against the United States in regard 10
the lattcr'S operations in Central America, any
more than the United States could have against
Great Britain In regard To British operations in
AbySsinia That logic seems irrefuabe and
conclusive and is. on the face of 1t. But there
is lust this flaw in il, that this country has In
terms. by solemn treaty. given and conceded TO
Great Britain those very rights which, under
international law. the latter never could have
acquired. That is the troublesome point which
gives force TO this objection TO the treaty.
Half century ago, when the construction
of the Nicaragua Canal was being considered
Great Britain made some prctcnsion TO owner
ship Of the NicaraCuan coast lands where the
eastern terminus of the canal must be- The
pretensiOn was baSclcss. But the United
States instead Of boldly denying and resisting
IT, contcnted itself with asking Great Britain
for permission 10 construct the canal through
the land in question. Great Britain refused. but
offered TO enter into treaty for n joint pro-
tcctorate over the canal TO this the United
States weakly agreed. and The notorious Clay
ton-Buwer treaty Of 1870 was the result Tn
der that instrument the two Governments
agreed that neither should ever have ANY eX-
elusive control over the said ship canal, or
erect any Notifications commanding the same.
or assume or exercise any dominion
cover any part Of Central America;
d" or use any influence that either may
possess with any State or Government
through whose territory the canal may pass
"for the purpose of acquiring or holding. d.
"ractly or Indirectly. for the citizens or subjects
"of the one any rights or advantages
(which shall not be offered on The same terms
"to the citizens or subjects of the other" Now.
that called upon Great Britain 10 abandon her
untenabe claims to the Nicaraguan coast; though
as a matter of fact she did not do 50. But
il did worse than that for the United States.
1t prevented this country from constructing
the canal on its own account II subjected this
Country's dealings with a ncighboring Ameri.
can Republic to the supervision Of a European
Power. And al the present day it is. morally
at least Il bar 10 American construction and
control Of the canal; it gives 10 Great Britain
the rights against this country which Mr.. Ed
mundS says She has not. and which in justice
she should not have: and il gives this Arbitra-
ton Treaty bearing upon the canal which
must be regarded as Incompatible with Ameri-
can interests.
A radical solution Of this difficulty is. how
ever. suggested. 1t does not lie in the rejection
Of the Arbitration Treaty or in any material
modification of that instrument. 1t does lie
in the prompt abrogaion Of the Clayton Bul-
wer Treaty. That treaty, it is argued was
based on error. It has operated to the adj
vantage of neither country. but really to the
disadvantage of both. II has delayed to this
late date the construction of the canal. 1t has
been violated in spirit and in letter. by Great
Britain. and If has been violated in spirit and
may soon be in letter. by the United States.
Both countries have. more than once, OK
pressed a desire for It's abrogation. though
neither has yet taken the technical step neces-
sary to effect that end. Among all our treaties
there is not one more diScrcditcd. doSpiSed and
obsolete It's continued existence can do no
good, but may, as now appears. cause rrita-
ton and trouble between the two great na-
tons whose intercourse should be most friend
". The proposition is therefore made TO abro-
gate il. Then. if this country decides TO pro-
cccd with the construction of the Nicaragua
Canal. IT may do under its own exclusive
control. without Il shadow of doubt upon It's
moral tile 50 10 do; and II may ralify this Ar
bitration Treaty without fear of its control Of
the canal being impcrillcd or challenged there
under. That i a proposition TO which the Sen
ate ana Executive will. no doubt. give careful
consideration.