The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1899-01-30
SENATOR RAWLINS' VIEWS
ON NICARAGUA CANAL BILL

and definite action for more than 300
years.
Under our treaty with Great Britain
in 1S4S, of which the provision IN the
twentieth section of this bill is almost
a literal copy, the United States has
already defined its position by an
opinion of the attorney general that
the guaranty of neutrality precludeS
absolutely the transit through that
canal of ships and munitions OF war
in time of war. That particular case
arose when Spain was at war with
Chile and Peru and sougth to send
munitions of war over the Panama
railroad. Colombia, through winch
that road extends, appealed TO the
United States to interfere to protect
the neutrality of that route. The Sec
rotary Of state referred the matter TO
the attorney general, and the United
States then took the position that those
transit routes, under the provisions OF
those treaties, We're neutralized, ana
therefore that neither belligerent could
utilize them for the purposes OF ag-
gression or warfare when there EXISTED
a state of war.
I'VE are, therefore, estopped from
claiming, If this bill is passed into
law and if this canal is opened, that
we have any right 10 use the canal in
a manner and under circumstances
different from those which, would per-
tain TO any other government 1t must
be closed alike to both belligerents, al
though one of them is the United
States. and although we may have ex-
pended 5000, 100000 or $5O0.0O0,OOO of the
money of the treasury of the United
States to construct ii. We ought not
to proceed under a false idea; the
American people ought not to be de-
ceived. We hear much about the great
military and naval advantages OF TINS
canal under certain circumstances ana
conditions. If fortified and garrisoned
and protected by the United States, so
that it may be made impregnable, 1t
will doubtless be of great advantage
to the people of the United States, but
otherwise it will be q source of con-
slant peril and danger.
More than 300 years ago, when
Spain was at her acme of glory under
Charles l, a project was set on root
to cut a waterway through the 18TH
mus for the transit of ships Philip ii
Spain then being in possession of
Peru and Chile-investigated the ques-
ton of the military or naval advant-
ages or disadvantages, and he came to
the conclusion that a power like Great
Britain or Holland if that canal were
used under the conditions then pre-
vailing, might utilize it in order to
make an aggression upon the Spanish
possessions and commerce on the Pa
cific coast; and for that very reason
he decided that the canal should not
be constructed.
1T is only right that these matters
should be taken properly into con-
sideration; and it seems to me that it Is
not for us to relegate these important
and vital questions to the president.
The responsibility is with congress.
with the senate and with the house of
representatives. Nor is it for the SEN
ate to abdicate its legislative func-
lions and TO subordinate its judgment
and its wisdom to what may be the
judgment or the wisdom of the other
branch of congress. We must legislate
upon our own responsibility. L can
not, for one, bring myself to the con-
clusion that 1 must vote for any Fleas-
ure here with the hope that some
where else it may be so perfected as
to subserve the best interests of the
people of the United States. Unless
this measure is radically amended l
cannot and will not cast my vote for
it, and I can not see how any senator
who believes that this enactment will
be- subversive Of the best interests of
the country can, in duty to his constitu-
ents, cast his vote for a measure
which he believes in the end will be
detrimental to the welfare of our
country"