The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-05-02

! tral?" Mr.. Burton said he would answer
emphatically in the affirmative. Nothing
else was in consonance with the spirit OF
the age; nothing else would so add to the
ease and safety Of management, and moth
ing else was in harmony with our record.
Mr. Burton reviewed this, including the
| naturalization of canal in Denmark, and
the st. Lawrence River and canals in
Canada. He asked if no one saw the humor
| In the United States in demanding the
right to fortify and control the canal?
The diplomatic correspondence of the
United States was quoted in detail by Mr.
| Burton to show that in it's dealings with
other nations the United States had in
sisted upon the neutral control of canals.
| Mr.. Hepburn enquired if in all the ne
gotiations referred to by Mr. Burton it
| was not true that some one else was to
| build the canal and the United States was
| insisting on the principle of neutrality
! for our own benefit
Mr.. Burton-I will concede the first part
| OF the gentleman's question. 1t is not be-
| cause We are weak but because we are
| strong that We can afford to make these
| conces sions.
To Mr.. Levy Mr.. Burton said that the
| United States would gain the most bene-
| hit from the construction of the canal.
Mr. Levy-Would not Great Britain gain
the most benefit?
Mr.. Burton-No: her shipping might, but
our commerce would expand infinitely more
| than hers.
Traversing the statements made by Mr..
| Burton, Mr. Corliss of Michigan said that
the commerce of the United States could
not yield to his request for further delay
in the construction OF the canal.
Mr.. Hits Contention.
Mr.. Hit of Illinois opposed that portion
of the bill which provided for the control
of the land through which the canal would
pass for the reason that it controverted
the express terms of the Clayton Bulwer
Treaty That treaty, he declared, was in
full force and effect, and had never been
abrosated either by the United States or
Great Britain. 1t was a sacred Obligation.
and nation which did not keep its prom
ises did not deserve to live. The treaty,
he said, had been negotiated at the earnest
solicitation Of the United States and was
in response to the resolutions passed by
Congress six years before calling on the
President to bring about an agreement
with Great Britain to preserve the equal
rights for all nations in any canal which
might be built
events since the Clayton BuIwer Treaty
came INTO existence, showing that it had
been invoked time and again by the United
States, and against acts or proposed acts
OF Great Britain. In one instance, he said
in the fifties, when Great Britain was ne
sotiating treaty with Nicaragua the
United States had insisted that the pro-
posed treaty was in opposition to the Clay
ton-Bulwer Treaty, and England. after un-
successfully endeavoring to secure from
TINS Government an agreement to arbitrate
one of its provisions, modification or an
abrogatlon of the entire treaty had aban-
doned the proposed treaty and her claims
in Central America. During the civil war.
he declared, when Great Britain had every
opportunity to force demands on the
United States, not one word had been ut
tered to show that the Clayton Bulwer
convention was not in full force and eff
feet
Mr.. Hit then pointed out how in 1865
Secretary Seward in pursuit of a plan
for territorial aggrandizement and for ac-
quiring coaling stations in Central Amer
lea, had instructed Minister Adams to
enquire from England if the Clayton Bull
wer Treaty would remain in force forever
II the proposed canal were not built and
how Stewards plans had been overthrow
by the firm reply of Great Britain Again
in 1872 the treaty was invoked. when Sec
retary Fish called the attention of Great
Britain to its interference with conven-
tion being negotiated with Guatemala, and
in 1880 Secretary Evarts prevented the
acquisition of the Bay Islands by Great
Britain by reminding her that it was in
contrayention of the Clayton Bulwer
Treaty. The withdrawal of the FreIipg-
huysen- Zavola Treaty after it had been
sent to the Senate, Mr.. Hit declared was
owing to the fact that it overstepped the
bounds of the Clayton Bulwer convention.
Secretary Bayard in 1883 and Secretary
Olney in 1895 had recognized the exist
eEce of the treaty Secretary Freling-
huysen. in fact, was the only Secretary
who did not acknowledge its obligations.
and he had said it was 'yoidable" and not
void. The Hay Pauncefote Treaty in its
first word recognized the existence of the
Clayton -Bulwer Treaty There was no
case where a nation could set aside the
provision of treaty without the wanton-
ness of power, the cynical disregard of
moral obligations.
Il would like to see this bill law"
he declared, but / do not want my coun-
try to perjure itself" The country which
it was proposed to Insult was not TN
friendly toward the United States: there
was no reason to slap it in the face.
The treaty, he continued, was as binding
on the conscience of every American citi-
zen as the treaty with Spain which con-
cluded the late war.
Mr. Cannon of Illinois. who followed
said he was in full sympathy with the
movement for an isthmian canal. He felt
it his duty to see that the canal was
constructed as economically and as early
as might be. and last session 81 900, 900 rad
been appropriated so the President could
investigate the routes for a canal The
object was to learn where the canal could
be most economically constructed.
Mr.. Cannon thought If several routes
were considered competition would ensure
and more reasonable figure for conces-
sions could be obtained. With the Presi-
dent alb solutely instructed to acquire GER
tain rights and territory with unlimited
money, Nicaragua would bleed the United
States for an unlimited amount He
thought the constituencies of members
could catch on without difficulty and
that members could easily explain their
vote against the bill. and he quoted an in
terview with Admiral Walker (who was
seated in the gallery. in which the lat
ter had said they were not ready now TO
say where any canal across the isthmus
should be constructed or which was the !
best route; il would take the remainder |
of the year to determine it. He said a (
greater error than that proposed in the bill /
could net be constructed. He did not be- /
lieve the story that the bill was being pro- /
NOTED by men who were Interested in post /
poning the construction of the canal He !
thought. however. the passage of this bill |
would delay the construction OF the canal |
for years and cost the country $50 900 900 |