The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-12-10

keeping the peace between the TWO cOun-
tries" it is because m has given
several good causes for American irritation.
THE HAY-PAUNCEFOTE TREATY.
The reasons for the negotiation of the
Hay-Pauncefote treaty seem not to be
fully understood b. the general public. In
1850. at the suggestion of the United States,
the so-called Clayton-Bulwer treaty was
negotiated with Great Britain. At that
time Great Britain was occupying the east
ern TERMINUS of the then talked-of Nicara-
qua canal and the United States controlled
the Pacific terminus. Out of these condi-
tions arose the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, by
the terms of which Great Britain was to
have a partnership with the United States
in any canal dug across the isthmus. At
that time It was not dreamed that the
United States would ever construct such a
canal as a government enterprise. If con-
structed it must be by the cooperation of
British and American capital. With a
fication of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, Pres
idents and Congress have admitted the
binding force of that treaty. Mr.. Blaine,
when secretary of state to President Gar
field, suggested to the British government
the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty, thus admitting its validity. Presi-
dent Hayes, on the other hand, is reported
to have said that the canal should be re-
garded as an extension of the American
coast line. In 1891. the Senate mmitt
on foreign affairs in a report said:
The committee is of opinion that the
United States is at present under no OBJ
legation, measured either by the terms or
the convention. the principles of public law,
or good morals, to refrain from promoting,
in any way that 1t may deem best for ats
just interests, the construction of this canal
without regard to anything contained in the
convention of 1850.
Aside from these official declarations 1t
stand in favor of the validity of the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty. Furthermore, the policy
of the country for many years was in favor
of a neutral sthmian canal. In 1925 Presi-
trality in regard to an interoceanic canal.
In 1884, while Jackson was President, the
Senate passed a resolution favoring the
building of a Panam canal and extending
1.-The free and equal right of navigating
such canal to all nations A year later
the House adopted similar resolutions. In
1916 the United States negotiated a treaty
with Colombia which guaranteed the strict
neutrality of any canal which might be
built across that country. Both the Pierce
missions to Central America 'to procure
assurance that no nation would be allowed
a canal not free to universal commerce"
During his first term General Grant nego-
vided that every nation shall have at all
times. whether in peace or war, the right
to transit through said canal" In 1884 a
treaty was negotiated with Nicaragua
which seemed to give the United States ar
bitrary control of any canal which might
be built. but it was withdrawn from the
Senate by President Cleveland. who gave
the following reason for his action:
Whatever highway may be constructed
across the barrier must be for the worlds
benefit. a trust for mankind, to be removed
from the chance of domination by any
single power, nor become a point of invi-
tation for hostilities or a prize for warlike
ambition.
Thus it appears that from 1926 to the ac-
ton of the House last year the government
of the United States has labored to prevent
the building of a canal that should be
otherwise than neutral and free to all ma
tions in peace and war. Indeed, not oon-
tent with the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, which
enterprise without our consent or co-opera-
ton. our government has from time to time
made treaties with the Central American
governments binding them not TO permit a
canal that shall not be free to the world.
The H-ay-Pauncefote treaty modified the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty so as to permit the
United States to build an isthmian canal,
provided that strict neutrality is main
tanned. This is the proposition that the
Senate is discussing. The objection to the
treaty is that the United States has a right
to build the canal without consulting any
other government and to make it an Amer
Eican canal by fortifying it. Without pre-
senting evidence, the opponents of the
| treaty declare that the Clayton-Bulwer
| treaty is void because Of some action of
that government years ago and long before
a long line of American statesmen have
admitted its binding force.
c,ch haing the facts I'm the case IN n,,S+
| appear TO fair-minded Americans that the
Ciayton-Bulwer treaty is In force and that
TO proceed to make a law to CONSTRUCT a
canal without the abrogation Of that treaty
: and with provisions which destroy neutral