The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1900-12-20
THURSDAY. DECEMBER 20. 1900.
THAT CANAL TREATY

average iutoiiBonOo n"S NV
time or inclination to grspple with
the question. Yet it is one OF so
grave importance to this country
that the U. S. Senate is giving 1t
DAVIS of serious consideration, ard
the whole of English political circles
is watching the termination with al
most breathless interest. AS the
subject is one over which there is like
" vet to be great diplomatic trouble
every ready should have more than
q superficial understanding OF the
subiect, so we will endeavor to place
it in q simple and intelligent light to
our readers, at the same time being
brief.
Previous to the past year the only
treaty between Great Britain
and this government, touching upon
the subject of sn isthmian canal was
the old one known as the Clayton
Bulwer treaty. During the year our
Secretary, Hay, and the English
minister, Pauucetote, drafted new
treaty to supplsnt the old one, and it
is this new treaty which is now be-
ing 80 mercilessly buffetted by Re
publican Senate.
The following will show the diff
ferance between the Olayton-BulWer
and the Hay-Pauncefote treaties upon
the canal subject;
Clayton Bulwsr Hay Treaty.
treaty Article Lit is
Article 1. - The agreed that the Ca
Governments Of the nal may be con-
United States and structed under the
Great Britain here auspices of the
by declare shat Government Of the
neither she one nor United States, Ell
the other will ever ther directly at its
obtain or maintain own cost, or by gift
for itself any exclu- or loan Of money
sive control overlto individuals or
the said ship canal ;loorporst on or
s&s neither will through subscrip-
ever erect or main ton to or purchase
tain any fortitioa. of stock or shares,
tions commanding and that. subject 30
the same. etc. the provisions OF
Article III. The the present conven-
persons employed ton, the said Gov
In making the said lernment shall have
canal, and their and enjoy all the
property shall rights incident TO
be protected such construction.
by the Govern as we'll as the ex
ments Of the Unit elusive right of pro-
cd States and Great viding for the reg
Britain from I'M ulation and man
Just detention. con agement of the
fiscation, seizure or canal.
any violence what. Art. H., Sec. L
soever. No fortihcahons
Art. V.-The con- shall be erected
tracing parties commanding the ca
further engage thatln or the waters
when the said canal adjacent. The Unit
shall have been ed States, however.
completed they will shall be at liberty
protect 10, etc. to maintain sucn
military pol ce
along the canal as
may be necessary
to protect 1t against
lawlessness and dis.
order.
There is 8 great contention, and
with sincere honesty difference of
opinion as to the binding qualities of
the old treaty, some contending that
Great Britain has upon numerous
occasions broken the terms OF it,snd,
therefore, it is no longer binding up.
on US. The Hay treaty does not
seem to meet with any more favor at
the hands of those who take this
view, and they have already mutila'
ted it considerably in the Senate. The
chances are that Great Britain will
not accept it in the shape in which
ii will come from the Senate's hands
Nearly all agree, though, that Secre-
tsry Hay was out-generaled in his
negotiations with the British minister.
As much as THE FREE LANCE de. |
sires to see the isthmian canal con-
structed We do not think that the
United States should do the work and |
then give to Great Britain and other
nations equal rights therein. Both
Of the treaties seek to do this, and
il is because Of this that the Hay |
treaty will not be ratified by the |
Senate in it's original form. Nor are
we prepared to say that this govern
ment should 90 ahead, construct and
fortify the canal, nolens volens. To |
do this latter would mean throwing |
of the gauntlet at the feet OF not only |
England but Of the other Powers,too.
THE FREE LANCE has no case OF
tremors when the lion .roars, nor yet
is it at all inclined to Anglophobia,
but here an idea presents itself which
may have come to others, but We
have as yet seen no suggestion OF it,
and that is to effect new treaty with
England in which it is agreed that
in case of war With that country,
only, the canal is to be considered
as neutral territory. We do not be.
lieve that we should ever be called
upon to carry out these terms, as the
time has passed when there is danger
of the two great Anglo-Saxon races
elsshing. At the same time it will
encourage England to accept an
amended treaty and pave the way to q
construction Of the waterway. Other.
wise we will have to deal independ-
emily with every power who may
declare interest in the matter and
also enter into new negotiations with
Costa Rics and Nicaraugua with no