New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-12-27
THE cLAYTOy-BULwER TREATY.

| Tall, nj obroeation OF the Clayton Bulwer
| Treaty is revived on both sides or the ocean,
! 1t has been heard on both sides many times DE-
| fore. but never with so much earnestness as
now. and never with so good prospect OF us
practical realization Hitherto Great brl'aii'
has now and then manifested some desire 10 pe
rid of IT, but this country has preferred 10 let IL
stand At other times this country has wisheo
TO abrogate It, but Great Britain has urged us
maintenance But now the two nations seen,
TO be in pretty substantial accord Inc most
authoritative expressions OF opinion OH DOM
sides are to the effect that the interests OF DOM
would be served ny abrogation or at least mate
rial modification of the treaty; and when TWO
parties are agreed upon thing. and they alone
are concerned with ii, the thing Is apt u he
done.
Now, this is the case as 1t was and Is set
forth with the brevity Of Carlyles American
Had In a NUTSHELL: The treaty was made for
the purpose Of facilitating the construction or
ali isthmian canal. 1t has not achieved that
purpose. but the contrary has baked and
tlwarted 1t. Thus it has defeated its own pur-
pose and destroyed its own sole reason for ex-
stence. In so far as it applies to anything
other than the canal, 1t has long been dead
letter. In respect to the canal, 1t Is smpl! n
dog in the manager. Neither party to 1t wants
to construct canal under its terms-that Is. In
partnership with the other. Yet both want
canal And as long as the treaty is observed
neither can construct it alone. SO the treaty
simply defeats the will of both its makers.
The hopeful feature of the case Is that the
two Powers are in accord on the subject and
are in accord in desiring the spirit rather than
the letter of the treaty to prevail The spirit OF 1t
is that the canal shall be neutralzed. The letter
Of IT Is that such naturalization shall be secured
by joint construction and joint control. That
seemed all right in 1850. But we have both
learned several things since then. For one
thing we have learned that such a canal can
be perfectly neutral and yet be under the con-
troll Of single Power. The Suez Canal is an OK
ample in point 1t Is neutral, yet 1t is practi-
cally under British control. Last summer 1t
was freely opened. under its fixed rules, TO the
Spanish fleet. and II would have been similarly
open to the American fleet So would a Mica
ragua canal. under our control, he open to both
belligerents in any war that did not concern us
that IS. in which we were neutral Power.
No one imaglneS for n moment that the Suez
Canal would be open To the fleets Of any Power
that was at war with Great Britain; and neither
would Nicaragua Canal be open TO any
Power that was nj war with us.
Those are the reasonable principles which this
Clayton Bulwcr Treaty aimed to enforce. 1t
did so in somewhat maladroit way, as it ap-
pears in the light Of later years. They can. it is
now evident, be enforced far better by other
means. Great Britain now knows she can trust
this country TO keep the canal neutral. just as
all the world trusts her to keep the Suez Canal
neutral She knows that the construction of
the canal would mean great gain for her. And
she knows that it can be constructed in only one
way. namely. ny Americans and under Ameri-
can control. Therefore it is that British opinion
is more and more strongly favoring such change
Of the treaty as will permit us unhampered to
proceed with the construction Of the canal In
such circumstances il ought not to be difficult
to reach an understanding that will permit and
cause the desire Of the nations TO be fulfilled