Morris tribune. [volume] (Morris, Minn.) 1880-2000, 1897-02-03
CAPITAL ITEMS.

Many Senators are strongly of
the opinion that Great Britain is
back of the greater republic of
Central America, and that the let
ter sent to Secretary Olney by its
minister Senior Rodriguez and by
Olney sent to the Senate, In rela-
tion to the Nicaragua Canal de-
claring that if the present Near
aqua Canal Bill should pass the
Senate all the concessions granted
to the Canal Company by Near
aqua would become void, was IN
spired by the government. They
feel too. that at last they have dis
covered Great Britian's reason for
entering into an arbitration treaty
for five years duration. Senator
Morgan, (Ala.) was particularly
strong in his announcement of this
scheme of England's and demand
ed if the next step would be the
ratification of the treaty of arbi-
tration which will further hedge
and protect Great Britain. He
characterized the letter of Senior
Rodriguez as proposition of
blacBmail inspired by the British
government, and declared that
minister Rodriguez was sent here
for that purpose. It was the opin-
ion of many senators that the pre-
sentation of the letter, coming
from the Secretary of State, meant
that the President had determined
that the pending Nicaragua Canal
Bill was not to be allowed to pass,
which action was quite in line
with previous executive action.
Minister Rodriguez in his letter
stated that as the time within
which the canal was to have been
built had expired, and consequent
~ the concessions to the Canal Go.
has been forfeited, he would sug-
gest that the Government seek an
arrangement u2der the Savalla-
Frelinghuysen treaty. As this
treaty provided that this govern
ment pay Nicaragua 100000,
for the canal concession it is
thought that this is an attempt to
+=ither bunco Uncle Sam, or to per-
NIT Eng land to drive US out of the
isthmus. Senators Hale and Villas
admit that the letter was the death
blow to the bill.
Secretary Olney was before the
Senate Foreign Relations commit
tee explaining to it and defending
ans recent arbitration treaty. From
the character of the questions ask
ed it was evident that the members
of the committee were decidedly
uncertain as to the scope of the
treaty and its bearing upon two
important questions, the Monroe
Doctrine and the Nicaragua Ca
nal. Senators Frye and Lodge
were especially DESTROYS Of determ-
lining its bearing upon the Monroe
Doctrine, and Senator Morgan
looked after the interests of the
Canal Company. Secretary Olney
gave it as his opinion that the
treaty did not include the Monroe
Doctrine, and in answer to ques-
tipn from Senator Lodge as to why
"a definite announcement to that
effect had not been included in the
treaty he remarked that it would
not have been policy to include
snch a statement in the treaty as
1t would have caused criticism and
might have endangered the success
of the treaty. Mr.. Lodge intimat-
ed that he would insist upon spe-
cial amendment which would make
ut impossible for the Munroe Doc
frine to be brought within the
terms of the treaty. Mr.. Olney
further stated that questions con-
csrning Cuba or Hawaii could not
be made the subject of arbitration,
ahseause they came under the head
ssf tsforeign policy The only
possible questions to be arbitrated.
he said, were those which would
arise under the treaties between
the two countries or under inter
national law The committee ask
ed Mr.. Olney if the Venezuelan