The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-01-24


8. Those constructing the canal under
the authority Of the local governments
to be protected in person and. property.
A. The contracting parties to use their
influence with local governments to
facilitate the construction of the canal;
and also their good Offices to- procure
the establishment of two free ports.
8. When completed, the contracting
parties to guarantee the protection and
neutrality of the canal, which may be
withdrawn by either party upon six
months notice. provided the regula-
tons concerning traffic ar contrary to
the spirit and intention of the treaty"
6. Contracting parties to invite friend
ly states ito enter into stipulations
with them similar to those which they
have entered into with each other" and
particularly as to the Central American
states.
l. Contracting parties to give support
to such reliable persons or company as
may first offer to m the con-
struction Of the canal, priority of claim
to belong to any person or company
having made preparations therefor.
8. Both governments "agree to extend
their protection, by treaty stipulations,
to any other practicable communica-
tions, whether by canal or railway,
across the isthmus," and especially to
those (which are now proposed to be
established by way of Tehuantepec or
Panama"
For thirty years nothing in the way
of construction work was DONE. Neither
country showed the slightest DISPOSE
ton to fulfill the terms of the agree
its existence. President Buchanan made
persistent efforts to have it a~brogated.
He appealed to congress first and then
tried in every way to have it set aside
by mutual consent of the contracting
powers. But British persistence won
the day. When Lord Napier informed
this republic that his government
would consent to %abrogate the treaty
only on condition that the status quo
of 1852 be restored, which would estab-
lish Great Britain's claim to British
Honduras, the Bay islands and the
Mosquito coast, Buchanan desisted
from the attempt.
The matter dragged along in this
way for years. Little interest was
shown, until 1879, when an Inter
oceanic Canal Congress was held at
Paris, and the United States delegates
took a sort of Monroe doctrine stand,
refusing to cooperate with any other
nation in the construction of an 18TH
milan waterway.
Congress declared by resolution that
the least move OF the part of any for
eign power to begin the construction Of
a canal across the isthmus could not
be regarded in any other light than as
the manifestation of an unfriendly dis
position towards the United States"
This resolution was passed by the
senate. Another was introduced nto
the house, which solemnly declared
that 1.-The construction of an inter-
oceanic canal connecting the Atlantic
and Pacific by foreign capital, under
the auspices of or through a charter
from any European government, is
hostile to the established policy of the
United States, is in violation of the
spirit and declaration of the Monroe
doctrine and canno be sanctioned or
assented to by this government"
Feeling ran pretty high over this
canal project twenty years ago. 1t was
a strict Interpretation of the Monroe
doctrine that Americans insisted upon
in those days. Europeans called it a
dog in the manger" policy. They said
that the United States would neither
build the canal nor permit any one else
to do so.
Secretary Blaine informed the Brit
ish government of the Amer
al policy when he wrote to
the Earl of Granville, calling attention
to the following excerpt from the in
augural address of President Garfield:
Il believe it to be the right and duty
of the United States to assert and
maintain such supervision and author
ity over any i%nteroceanic canal across
the isthmus as will protect our national
interests"
To which the secretary of state ad-
ded:
The position of the United States is
nothing more than the pronounced ad-
herence to principles long since enunei-
ated by the highest authority of the
government, and now, in the judgment
the president, firmly interviewer as
an integral and important part of our
national policy"
The British representative replied,
attention to the fact that Great
Britain's rights and position were de-
clearly by the terms of this
.layton-Bulwer treaty. Mr.. Blaine's
reply was striking similar in sentiment
to that expressed in the editorial in
yesterdays London News. 1t was final
the time, but England would not ac-
q~uiesce. Since then there has been a
change in the relations between the
governments, until it is more than
likely that British statesmen will con
cede that Secretary Blaine was right
when he wrote:
THE provisions of the Clayton-Bul-
treaty were made under conditions
were temporary in their nature
and which can never be reproduced.
The operation of the treaty practically
comedies to Great Britain the control
IF whatever canal may be constructed,
and this government, with respect to
European states, will not consent to
9~erpetuate any treaty that impeaches
rightful and long-established claim
% priority on the American continent"
After Garield's death and Blaine's
'etirement Secretary Frelinghuysen
.ook up the thread, but left it in as
much of a tangle as ever. He contended
hat the treaty could refer only to
anal projects in existence at the time