The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-12-26
THE NICARAGUA CANAL.
Terms on Which the Clnytcn-BuIver
Treaty Might Be AbrOgated.
Spectator.


men would have to bring their minds to
bear upon the question of the Nicaragua
canal and the Clayton Bulwer treaty, and
this is exactly what has happened. The
assertion by the President of the United
States in his message to Congress that ''the
construction (of the Nicaragua canaD is
now more than ever indispensable and our
policy more imperatvely than ever calls
for it's control by this government" has
al once brought the matter within the re-
gion of practical politics. We make no
claim to any special prescience in the mat
ter. The Americans have always longed for
an interoceanic canal and it was evident
that directly they had acquired possessions
in the West Indies opposite the coasts of
Central America and also an island empire
in the Pacific, they would desire to link
them by water communication. A revival
Of interest in the Nicaragua canal was thus
an inevitable sequence of the war. But
the Americans cannot obtain that control
over the Nicaragua canal which they de-
sire unless we are willing to abandon our
rights under the Clayton Bulwer treaty
an instrument under which both powers
bound themselves not to obtain an eX
elusive control over any interoceanic canal.
We and the Americans that is, agreed some
forty-eight years ago that canal should
only be made and controlled by the two
powers acting together, and in no case by
either power singly. Thus If we choose we
can no doubt veto the making of the canal
and prevent the Americans doing what they
so very much want to do. The people of
this country have, therefore, to consider
whether they will or will not veto the canal.
We are glad TO see already good many
indications that we do not intend to eX-
ercise our right of veto. The Times, in its
leading article on the Presidents message,
uses words which will we believe, be IN
dorsed not only by the government, but by
the majority of English people. The Times
says, most reasonably that IF the freedom
of the waterway were secured to ships OF
all nations, as in the case of the Suez canal,
we do not see what object We should have
in standing strictly upon claims which
9Tgnaed Wen the So es mene
like has been the tone adopted by the st.
James Gazette. IT has, however, been sug-
gested by the Daily Mail, on the other hand,
that we ought not to give up our rights, and
that should insist upon a joint control
CT the waterway. We do not think, how
ever. that this contention will, If it is care
fully examined, find favor here. Joint con-
troll, in the first place, means joint guaran-
tees and joint expenditure, and we DO not
believe that the people Of this country are
prepared to spend money in Nicaragua. We
have plenty of objects nearer home on
which to use our spare cash. When we
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 1t worth
while to construct or help construct the
canal, but our interests do not extend so
far. All we want is that the canal shall
be made and that when it is made it shall
be open and available to our merchant ships
and ships of war as freely as to those OF
the United States or of other powers. We
merely want an open waterway that no one
will be able to tamper with. Now, our con-
tentiOn is that we secure this object better
through American control than by any Othef
means Indeed, if America holds the canal,
it will be of more use to us in time or war
than if we held it ourselves. Supposing
the canal ours, or merely the property or
Nicaragua, a hostile power might block 1T
in the first instance as our property. and in
the second, in defiance OF weak state. IL,
however, it is controlled by America, we
need have no fear of being unable to use 1t,
FOR it will be in hands strong enough to
defend it, Take the case of a war with
France Russia and Germany, and the canal
in the hands of the United States. In such
a case we might be hard pressed and
should find it most convenient to be able
to pass our ships through the canal with
out having to guard its two mouths by pro-
tecting squadrons The canal would De =,
great neutral harbor with two outlets only
in the case of war with the United states
would American control be anything but
benefit. nut even in that case we doubt
whether American control would be worse
than joint control. The command of the
sea would have to be fought out, and the
We fail, then, to see why we should make
ourselves dlSagreeable to the Americans by
vetoing the canal. Rather we hold that We
ought to look with the greatest possible
satisfaction upon it's construction. What is
meant by control is matter which re-
quires attention. An able American publ
cist, Prof Woolsey, of Yale, in his work
on Americas Foreign Policy" recently
published by the Century Company of New
force and ingenuity, that America would
gain nothing by exclusive control and that
She had much better claim no more rights
in the canal tnan those given to any other
power Possibly he is right in theory, but
in practice some one power will always have
the control of any piece OF territory, and SO
of every artificial waterway. 1t was In
tended, it will be remembered, that the Suez
canal should be neutralized, and Mr.. Wool
sey making a most pardonabls blundeT,
imagnes that it was neutraized. In real
ity the neutrality convention was never
brought into force, and is now dead let
ter as the Spaniards found when they tried
TO coal their fleet at Port Said. They
claimed to regard the Suez canal as an in
tcrnational piece of water, but Lord Cromer
insisted and maintained his point, that 1T
was part of the waters of a neutral power
The Suez canal is not internationaliZed, but
is under the control of the power that con-
trolls Egypt. 1t is this kind of control, We
take it, that America intends 10 exercise.
What we suppose will happen is something
of this kind. Congress will refuse to vote
money to be used anywhere except in
United States territory, and accordingly a
narrow strip of lana on each side OF the
PT;OPosed waterway liter c0sta vii be gf5a Is by
plan ultimately ADOPTED, there will Of course
be no need of a prOtectorate treaty with
Nicaragua. The canal Will be made IN
United States territory.
We now come to the practical side of the
question. What answer are we to make to
America if, or rather when. she asks us to
agree to the abrogation of the Clayton
Eulwer treaty? 1t has been suggested that
we should ask for compensation elsewhere,
or try to make a bargain for trade facilities.
Possibly the plan might succeed, but we
confess we dislike such huckstering between
nations, especially when they involve de-
mands upon nation s internal fiscal policy.
We hold that ii would not only be more dig
nified but also more beneficial to us in the
long run to ask for no payment for giving up
what has, as a matter of fact, proved mere
ly a sort of uble-barrelled agreement by
England and America to play dog-fn-the-
Manager 20 each other We would rather
abrogate the treaty out of good will and
good feeling than for any direct Quid pro
quo. Let us show the world that. though
in the case of foreigners we shall be tena-
cious OF our treaty rights to the last iota,
we can. in the case Of our own kith and KIM
think of their interests and wishes as well
as of our own. The only conditions which
we would make should concern the canal
itself We would abrogate the treaty on the
following terms: "a That within the next
ten years the United States should make
or obtain the making of an interoceanic
canal; CD that she, and no other power
should exercise control over the waterway
and banks of the canal: CD that if the
United States ever abandoned her power of
control il should be offered first TO Great
Britain "a that the canal should be open
United States: 90 that the dues charged