The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-12-22

do this. II we choose: but II would be
an act for which every s-eif-respecting
American would blush with shame.
Let us next consider the question
whether IL h United States Is TO
construct the canal. II should do so
under the guise OF a private corpora
ton. The stock reason for this course
has always been that II was a way of
getting around the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty. under which we agreed to join
hands with England in the construc-
ton and control OF the canal. No more
puerile argument was ever conceived.
III the United States can the
franchise. furnish the money and hold
practically all the securities Of a COM
pany organized to build the canal. IL
can equally as well undertake IL as a
piece Of public work as IL would my
river Ind harbor Improvement. 20
far as it's obligations under the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty are concerned.
hos who are endeavoring to push
the Morgan bill through ngr are
privately urging upon the senator's and
representatives that IL In really as a
measure of justice to those who have
invested their money In the canal en-
terprise that the Morgan bill Ii desired.
They acknowledge that the existing
plant and the records n of
the company are only worth a small
sum, and that the company's fran
chise is practically void; but they urge
that those who put their money into
the canal enterprise should not be
compelled to suffer total loss.
We are far from denying hat there
is some reason in his presentation of
the case. 1t Is quite possible that the
nation ought to pay to o who In
good faith spent money upon this en-
terprise. something more than the pres
ent value of the plant and surveys.
But what we would urge Ia that II this
Is to be done, let 1t be done openly
and squarely. Let II be plainly under
stood that the Morgan bill Is a bill to
repay to Maritime canal stock N
b~ondholders their expenditures upon
the enterprise. II this Is not done. n
the bill is passed in Its present form.
the certain result will be a scandal
and an Investigation. which will very
probably put the action of many mem
bers OF congress in a worse light than
they deserve. 1t may be just and
equitable L pay So 900, 900 to Nicaragua
stock and b~ondholders; but the people
will not be convinced that there has
not been wholesale fraud IL this pay
ment is made in the guise Of purchase
money for something worth only a
tenth part OF that sum.
Still another serious question TO
"ilti cAOdAa eaNS btte - -
question what is to become of the $5,-
900, 900 which 1t is proposed by the Nor
gan bill to turn over in a lump TO the
Maritime Canal company? How much
would the genuine investors in the
company receive. and how much would
be diverted on n pretext or another
into the pockets of those who nave
already made profits by their manipu-
ations of the company's stock? How
much of the s., 1000. 900 would be allot-
ted to those who paid for their stock
only in ''infiuence?" Are some of the
newspaper proprietors whose journals
have been most vociferous In urging
the speedy passage of the Morgan bill
to have a goodly share? Is the anxi-
ETY. to further the interests of the
Maritime Canal company which GER
tain high public officials have display
ed. explainable on any other ground
than pure unadulterated patriotism?