The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1900-03-07
matt9man 4 guurnaL
WEDNESDAY. JUNE 7, 1900
ARTHUR ROPES. General Editor
Amending the Treaty,

The New York Sun, the journal that
has led the opposition to the ratibca-
ton of the Hay Pauncefote treaty, dis
cusses the query, sWould England ac-
cept amendments of the Hay-Paunce-
fote conventiou2 The Sun finds in an
article in the London Spectator reason
to believe that Secretary Hay might
have secured much more acceptable
agreement with the British foreign Of
fee than that which was embodied In
the unfortunate convention recently
negotiated. The Spectator, 1t is ex-
planned, is the mouth-piece OF the Lib
eral-U nionists, who are represented IN
the cabinet by Joseph Chamberlain and
the Duke of Devonshire, who could
shape the course of the British govern
ment with regard to the Nicaragua ca
nal.
According to the Spectator, even far
sighted Englshmen would justify the
Americans in exscting two important
amendments of the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty. 1t thinks the Americans may
fairly claim the right to fortify the
canal and close itin time of war against
an enemy. OF all the European pow
ers, England has the least to fear from
the exercise of such right. The pros
pect of war between Great Britain and
the United States is 80 remote that
discussion of it is regarded as largely
academic. War between the two coun-
tries is not impossible; but war is i'm
probable, and the Spectator, speaking
for Englishmen, says, eve do not in
tend to go to war with America" Eng
lishmen, therefore, should keep their
eyes fixed on the tremendous benefits
they would derive from the use of the
canal in time of peace and in the event
of war with continental power. In
view OF the latter contingency the Spec
tator advocates the concession to the
United States of the right to fortify
the canal. 1--WE want" it adds, "to
see the American guardian of the canal
hold it so strongly that no one will be
able to challenge his right. If
America were only allowed to police
the canal, and not to defend it, the So
called neutrality would be likely, or
rather certain, to prove farce on the
first occasion when any great continent
tai power should have a really strong
temptation TO violate the neutrality"
The Spectator fears that other con-
tinental powers, France, Germany and
Russia in particular, would vehemently
oppose the proposition to which Eng
land might offer no objection, viz, that
the United States may fortify the canal
and exclude an enemy in time of war.
The Sun feels no apprehension on this
score. On this point the Sun says:
No European government, except Eng
land, has ev the shadow Of pretext for
protesting against the exclusive control by
our government of an artificial waterway
constructed at our expense, for the reason
that with no other European government
except England has our state department
ever committed the egregious blunder Of
concluding Clayton Bulwer treaty, or q
Hay-Pauncefote convention. So far as
Russia, Germany, or even France is con
cerned, we can go forward and treat Mic
aragus canal as part of our coast line
freely granting the use of it to all for
eign countries on equal terms in time Of
peace, but forbidding public enemy to EN-
ploy it to our detriment in time OF war.
In view of these semi authoritative
expressions of English opinion, the
wonder is that Secretary Hays name is
part of the title of the convention
now before the Senate. Independent
ly of the considerations presented by
the Spectator, the agreement, on the
part of the United States, regarding
neutrality aud fortifyiny, seemed like E
surrender of 'certain inalienable
rights" If English opinion is fairly
represented by the Spectator, Secretary
Hays slump is inexplicable.