New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-08-28
CONTROL or the ISTHuIAN CANAL.

CONTROL or the ISTHuIAN CANAL
THE London Spectator takes up the question
Of the Clayton Buwcr treaty ana itS bearings
uuon the proposed Central American canal.
which was Complementary discussed "A few
doys ago bv our London correspondent. II
agrees with him in dceming the treaty not only
ineffective for good. Int an actual hlndrnnce 10
tho construction OF "A cnnal which Is demanded
hv the interests of both nations and In reckon
iuy narrower that II canal controlled according
IN the provisions of the trcnty might hecoin" Il
scrlous detrimont 10 both nations In IL con
clusions and recommendations Tile Spectator
* somewhat more radical than Mr.. Ford. lie
suggested an amendment Of the trcHty, 10 bring
il into accord with present requirements while
if looks 10 outright abrogaion Of the treaty,
demand for which. It thinks. will soon be- made
bv this country. or that we are not X" sure
The suggestion of Our correspondent seems the
more reasonable and the more probable OF ful-
flment No doubt request for abrogatlon
would be- justihaLlr II We mistake not. Great
Britain long ago, and oftencr than once or twice
EXPRESSED desire for such action But amend
mcnt would he plcasanicr and easier course
and. We believe. fully effective
The treaty in question was undoubtedly well
the construction Of n canal across the iSthmus
70 assure the neutrality Of the canal or any
other transisihmlan route by keeping Il under
the control of the Central American State or
States through whose territory II passed. and 10
prohibit any infringement Of the sovereignty Of
,uch States by Great Britain or the United
States Well N respect 10 the first II has been
, q failure. The treaty was concluded nearly
| Al hnc yafh as
built: and it IS recognized that the chief OBJ
stacle TO the building Of 1t has been the treaty
itself. In respect to The second object il has
! been dsregardcd by this country in the cstab-
usbynent of American protection and control Of
the Panama Railroad. And as for the third,
Great Britain herself has ignored It without
! hesitation. Moreover, II Is now seen that the
second object stated would be altogether undc-
sirable for both tho sgn&tory Powers Under
| Central American control the canal would not
be assurcdly neutral. II would be the prey Of
any strong Power that felt inclined 10 seize It.;
! so that enforcement OF the treaty would defeat
its own object only by placing it under the
control OF Il Power strong enough 10 protect II
against all corners can the neutrality Of the
canal be assured; and not only our Self-inicrest
but reason and common justice require that
Power TO be the United States itself
convincing illustration Of this point has
Just been furnished in the recent war between
The United States and Spain. The Sucz Canal
was sought TO be used as highway for bellig-
crcnt navcs. Had ii been under the control Of
! weak local authorities. one of the bclligcrent
Powers might easily have seized it and pre-
! vented III" use OF it by the other. Being under
the control Of Great Britain IT was entirely free
| 4, ell Ia Io nf Il :
ot all times a. neutral and as securely neutral
as the Atlantic Ocean itself. And although
Great Britain was commonly regarded ms being
more in sympathy with the United States than
with Spain. the most vehement Spanish parti.
san could find no ground for impcachlng her
absolute impartialiy In exactly like manner
would the United States control a canal across
the Central American ishmus. No doubt if
any nation went TO war with us we should close
fine canal against il. Just as Great Britain would
close the Sucz CLnal against any Power with
which she was at war, and just as any Power
would strive to make the high seas themselves
untenabc by It's adversary. But In any war In
which the United States was neutral the canal
would be neutral
What. then is left of the treaty, since its
three objects are unfuhlled? And why not alb
rogatc 1t altogether? The letter OF il is indeed
gone but the spirit, which Is more important
remains, and NJ the present time Is reused into
ncwness Of life. The treaty Is a token Of n dis
position on the part Of the two nations 10 act IN
harmony and to maintain an amicable under
standing In the matter of the canal. They came
10 such an understanding fifty years ngo but
adopted ways and means which were ill-advise(