Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-12-25
BRITAIN AND THE CANAL.

London Spectator has an article of espe-
cial interest. not to say Of especial value.
In the article the Spectator not only
States it's own position in respect Of
the matter, but briefly summarizes and
reviews the attitudes Of several of Its
leading contemporaries. 1t may, there
fore. be said that the Spectator fur
nishes data from which TO draw a pretty
correct conclusion as to British popular
sentiment touching British rights in the
premises. and what policy Britain ought
to pursue with reference TO the building
Of the canal.
In tho very beginning the Spectator
advances the contention that tho United
States cannot obtain the control OF the
canal they desire. unless Great Britain
is willing TO abandon her rights under
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and that
contention is iterated and reiterated d.
rectly or indirectly throughout the arti-
Gle. And, as we understand 1t, the same
contention obtains in the articles the
Spectator passes under review. In
other words, the British position is that
British concession is a condition preee-
dent TO our constructing the canal with
out violating the treaty. AS the case
now stands, Great Britain holds that she
has, to borrow the Spectators express
sion, the right TO veto" the canal.
But the Spectator is willing to conces-
sion-is willing TO forego the right Of
veto on certain terms. And after
stating that 1t has been suggested that
Great Britain might ask compensation
for consenting to abrogate the treaty,
and dismissing that suggestion as I'M
dignihed. our London contemporary re-
marks that it would rather %relinquish
British rights out Of good will than for
any quid pro quo, and formulates its
terms as follows: That % within the
next ten years the United States should
make. or obtain the making Of, an inter-
oceanic canal; O that they, and no other
Power, should exercise control over the
waterway and banks Of the canal; g
that if the United States ever abandon
her power of control. it should be offered
first TO Great Britain; O that the
canal should be open at all times
10 all nations at peace with the
United States; % that the dues
charged should be the same in the case
Of American and other vessels. Then the
Spectator proceeds to argue that when
one half of the "Anglo-Saxon race holds
the waterway between the Mediterranean
and the Indian Ocean, nothing could be
more appropriate thar that the other half
should hold that between the Atla2tic
and Pacific: that the treaty has turned
out at best to be an instrument Of mort
main. and that the acceptance by US
Of the terms specified would leave Great
Britain no possible ground for refusing
TO give up her treaty rights.
In reviewing the articles Of its con-
temporaries the Spectator quotes the Lon
don Times as declaring that III the free-
dom of the waterway were secured 10
ships Of all nations, as in the case Oh
the Suez canal, we do not see what Cd
ieot we Great Britain) should have In
standing strictly upon claims when
orininated when the circumstances were
altoeether different" The Spectator
COmmenQS InlS OtCldldtiCA' WIZ
the tone adopted by the st. James Ga
zette 'fs not less statesmanlike. ana
next proceeds TO take issue with the
Daily Mail, which latter objects to Great
Rritain's abandoning any or her rights
and champions joint control or the canal
The Spectator does not think that the
Nail's position, when carefully studied,
- &c., uftb tho british npOple.
for it says: Joint control, In the hrst
Mace. means joint guarantees ana JOINT
expenditure, and we do not believe that
the people Of his country are prepared
10 spend money in Nicaragua. we nave
nlsnty Of objects nearer home on which
m use our spare cash. When we can
GET all we want out OF an interoceanlc
canal controlled by America. why should
we burden ourselves in the matter? The
United States, as the Power most nearly
and vitality interested. may think II
worth while to construct or help con-
struct the canal, but our interests do not
extend so far" In concluding its COM
ments on the Nails article. the Spectator
saws that the above is the practical view
TO take or the matter
The Dispatch has always been friendly
TO the proposition to construct the Mica
ragua canal, and it would have the great
waterway controlled by this country. Yet
we recognize that 1t is not at all clear
that Great Britain has not tho veto"
mower under the Bulwer-Clayton treaty.
We have. therefore. thought that II would
be wisest 10 make our starting point
a definite understanding with Great Bri'
tain. The Spectators article would seem
10 indicate that the way Is open for such
an understanding, and that, too, along
lines that would vest the control of the
canal I'm the United States. with an abso-
lutte guarantee Of immunity from friction
between this country and Great Britain. |
Hence II would appear that those who
are engineering the canal question In con
gress might do worse than ponder the
Spectators presentation OF the case, es-
pecially In view OF the fact that news
comes from both Washington and London
that the British Government is in accord
with British popular sentiment on the
issue. and proposes to invite negotiations
for the ~abrogation OF the treaty. Even
II Great Britain's claim 10 untenable. we
cannot zee that anything would be lost
by meeting her half way. On the con-
trary. we do see that much might be gain
al by so DOING