The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-03-10

! Governments in the joint ownership ana
! control of the canal. Such an arrange
| ment, while it is still desired by some,
| would be a fatal mistake that would soon
| involve the countries in war. or 1t would
/ enlarge and soldify the scheme OF al
| lance that is embodied in the Clayton
! Bulwer Treaty into practical alliance.
! offensive and defensive. in the control oil
| navigation and the commerce of the wcrid.
! 1t is these later treaties that present the
! real ground of our present difficulty from
| which the convention Of 1900 relieves us
/ Danger Pointed Ont.
! III we should abrogate the parts of the
/ Clayton Bulwer Treaty which forbid the
exclusive control of the canal by either
| Government. thereby removing that re-
striction from Great Britain, we Wouiu
| deliberately open the door to her natural
| desire to obtain the right of the exclusive
! control of the canal under the treaty with
| Nicaragua concluded in 1860 Great Brit
| ain has claim to the exclusive control
! of the canal that is very important 10 hef,
! in that the British possession and the
| Dominion of Canada have coasts and great
| seaports in both oceans.
| NO other nation except the United
| States could have SO great an interest IN
| the exclusive right to own and control an
|
! what may we are compelled TO assert the
superiority of our right now for the first
! time conceded by Great Britain. 1t Is
| wise and Just, therefore, that the value
! of this concession to us should be esti-
| mated as great consideration Tor any
thing we may yield, if we, indeed, yield
anything, in acquiring the exclusive right
to control the canal by modification OF
the Clay ton -Bulwer Treaty.
The leading powers OF Europe recoS-
| nized the Importance of this subject, in re-
spect of the Suez Canal. and ordained Il
public international act for its neutrallza-
| tion that is an honor TO the civilization oil
| the age 1t is the benehcent work OF all
| Europe and not of Great Britain alone
| Whatever canal is built in the lsthmus oil
Darien will be- ultimately, made subject
J IN the same law of freedom and neutrality
| as governs the Suez Canal. as part OF the
| laws of nations, and no single power VIII
be able to resist its control. The Euro
pean powers gave to this subject the great
est consideration, and reached conclusions
that are not open to criticism as being un-
! lust TO any nation in the world.
Turkey and Egypt, the imperial and the
| local sovereigns OF the canal ana Great
| Britain. a controlling stakeholder IN the
! Maritime Canal Company. had special in
! terests in Tie rules for regulating the use
! of the caua; and they united in the con-
vention which deprived them OF eXcep-
: tional privileges in its navigation, IN
| peace and in war. for the sake of justice
to all maritime nations and the peace
and prosperity of the world.
No nation disapproves of this great act
or has had grounds of complaint against
II. No American will ever be found 10
/ complafu of ii. 1t is right in its moral
features in its inpartiality, and. aboye ali,
| in its tendency to decrease the resort 10
/ war for the settlement of international
quarrels and it will have the cordial ap-
! proval of the American people
| THE United States cannot take an attl-
,ude of opposition to the principles of the
great act of Ocober 22 1888, without dis
/ crediting the official declarations Of our
| Government for fifty years on the neutrah-
ty of an isthmian canal in time OF war ana
its equal use by all nations, without dis-
elimination. at all times.
| '"To set DIP the selfish motive oil gam py
establishing a monopoly of highway that
must derive its income from the patronage
| of all maritime countries would be nn-
| worthy of the United States il We owned
| the country through which the canal IS TO
| be built.
But the location of the canal belongs
| to other Governments, from whom we must
| obtain any right to construct canal on
| their territory, ard it is not unreasonable,
I
| yolyed in a subsisting treaty with Great
| Britain. that she should question the right
of even Nicaragua and Costa Rica 10 grant
| to our ships of commerce and OF war ex-
| traordinary privileges of transit through
the canal.
1T is not reasonable to suppose that
| Nicaragua and Costa Rica would grant 10
the United States the exclusive control OF
a canal through those States on terms less
I 10 thnr ma
than those prescribed in the great act of
| October %, 1883; or if we could compel
| them to give us such advantages over other
| nations it would not be creditable to our
| country to accept them.
One Question Presented.
THAT our Government or our people will
| furnish the money to build the canal pre-
sents the single question whether il is
| profitable to do so. II the canal, as prop
/ ertv. is worth more than its cost. we are
not called OH to divide the profits with
| other nations If 1t is worth less and we
| are compelled by national necessities to
| build the canal. We have no right TO call
| on other nations to make up the loss to us.
In any view it is venture that we will
| enter upon if it is to our interest and II
| il is otherwise we will withdraw from IT'S
| further consideration.
IL
10 Brito. and if each port was protected
| by a fortress. it would impose upon us
| the necessity of a permanent garrison to
| hold them otherwise the canal would fall
| into the hands of local military adventur
ers. O. those from neighborlng States.
| with the military police provided for
| by the United States in this convention
| for the protection of the canal, its defence
can be perfect against any foreign power
| that is not strong enough to occupy the
! country. and hold 1t against all comers.
| In any event, If wars are to come that
| will involve The ownership or control, of
the canal, or the right of passage through
! it, no battle should ever be fought in the
region near to il. To make the canal
| battle-ground is necessarily to expose il TO
/ destruction. and the erection OF fortresses
| for its protection will invite hostilities to
| its locality.
Costa Rica and Nicaragua. with our as
| sistance can always protect the canal
against attack by land, and our fleets are
| the only safe reliance 10 repel an attack
| from the sea. In either case, il the canal
| is the objective of the attack its defence
| must be made at distance from its line
| of location in order TO save it from de-
| struction.
But the real danger to the canal, from
| the absence of Notifications. is so sligh;
| and improbable that its discussion appears
| to be unnecessary. 1t is scarcely conceiv-
| able that Great Britain would send fleet
| across the Atlantic to attack our Western
coasts or across the Pacific to attack our
| Eastern coasts.
I'm either case We could concentrate our
| fleets through the canal to meet her Oh
IL.