The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-12-10

Bay islands, the renewed Nicaraguan at
tempts against the Mosquito reserve LEI
to another occupation by the British o
the Isla del Tigre and to an imminen
rupture of diplomatic relations between
Great Britain and the United States o
| America. The question was arranged
! however, by the convention known as thu
Clayton Bulwer treaty" concluded be
tween Great Britain and the Unitei State
on April ~, 1850, and the subject eve
since of much discussion in connection
with the Monroe doctrine. By the terms
of this treaty the neutrality of all anc
any present or prospective intersceanit
waterways across Nicaragua vast abso-
| lutely guaranteed.
Since the ratification OF the Clayton
Bulwer treaty citizens of the United
States, and the government itself, have
taken the most active part in the project:
looking to the dissection of the isthmu!
by great canal. In 1851 Cornelius Van
derbilt. having previously established q
steamer route on the lakes and rivers u
Nicaragua, formed the American Atlantic
and Pacific Canal company, and instructed
the survey from Brito via Lake Nicara-
qua, to San Juan del Norte. to Colonel
o. C. Childs United States army, who
laid the foundation of all later survey.
Child's canal was to be 1870 miles in length
with locks. From this time until 1869
when the railway across Panama was
opened, any number of schemes for q
channel were preached only to die away
Conventions between the United State:
and the United States OF Colombia were
sent to the senate OF this country by
Presidents johnson and Grant, but they
failed of ratification. More surveys fol-
lowed, and in 1877 the Nicaragua canal
r,,..
tive of De Lesseps, but the party in favor
of the United States in the Nicaraguan
congress was too strong.
Next came the International congress
held in Paris May 10, 1879, at which Ad-
miral Ammen and A. G.. Menocal were
delegates on behalf of the United States.
This congress was convened ostensibly to
determine the merits OF the different
canal routes. but, In fact, to select and
approve the Panama route. The delegates
OF The United States presented the ad-
vantages of the Nicaragua route, but ac-
tion was limited by the adoption OF a
resolution that the construction of canal
at uniform level was possible, and that
1.-THE maritime canal which would above
all offer such advantages should be To-
Gated between the Gulf of Limon and the
Bay OF Panama" This was a purposeful
exclusion OF the Nicaragua route. where
canal could only be constructed with
locks. Believing the Panama project to
be impracticable. Provisional Interna-
tional Canal society, formed in New York.
obtained concession from the Nicara-
guam government for the construction of
a canal. A resurvey of part of the route
was made, and in December 1881 Sem
ator Miller OF California introduced a
Dill with the object of granting the aid of
the United States to the construction of
the canal. 1t vas hindered in it's progress
by opposing interests until the time al
lowed by the concession for the com
mencementof work had elapsed Later
the bill which the committee on foreign
affairs of the Forty seventh congress had
reported. and similar one introduced
by General Rosecrans, met with like on
position from the friends OF the Panama
canal and the Tehuantepec ship railway
upon which latter novel project CANAAN
Eads had staked his professional repu,a-
ton. Action on the Rosecrans bill was
continually deferred In one session after
another, until the close of December
1905 when 1t came up as unfinished bust,
ness. The vote in favor of taking IL
up for consideration was 127 ayes 10 N
noes bur Notwithstanding there was A
large majority in favor Of adopting tina
oiil. immediate action could not be had
lnasmuch as two-thirds vote was n pre-
urinary necessity. No subsequent ON.
portunity could be secured
Meanwhile work had been progressing
On the Panama canal. The. actual work