New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-02-07

view to receive the advice and consent of the
Senate TO It's ratification a convention this day
signed py the respective penipotentiaries Of the
United states and Great Britain to facilitate the
construction of ship canal to connect the At
lantic and Pacific Oceans and TO remove any OBJ
Jecuon Which might arise out of the convention
of April ~, 1850, commonly called the Clayton
Bulwer Treaty. TO the construction of such
the United States WILLIAM MKTNI,EY
Executive Mansion Washington, D. c. Feb
ruary 3. 1900
MOST SENATORS SATISFIED
Most members of the Senate were surprised to
read this morning in the columns OF New-York
newspaper that the new Isthn1ian Canal Treaty
involved a surrender of American interests.
and would. therefore encounter serious II not
fatal opposition in the Senate. Doubtless few
Senators, to whom the conclusion of the new
convention came absolute surprise
at first disposed to scan it's provisions with eau
tious If not critical distrust. Those statesmen
who make speciality of holding that the United
States has never made other than losing diplo-
matte bargains with Great Britain were inclined
10 see in the naturalization Of the proposed
canal a covert abandonment of American con-
troll, at least in a military sense. Of the great
interoceanc highway. Closer study of the new
treaty and Of the conditions which must be
faced in the construction Of any isthmian water
way has convinced all but a few irreconcil-
ables in the Senate that every consideration of
true American policy is satisfied in an agree
ment which puts the isthnlian canal as Sc
curely under American control as the Suez Ca
nal is at this moment under British.
1t is recognized by leading Senators Of both
parties that the construction OF an American
canal pure and cimple, open to commerce only
on terms changeable at pleasure in Washington,
is political impossibilty. The canal must be
cut through the territory OF two foreign and
independent republics, on whose soil the United
States could not with propriety erect defences
or maintain the armed forces necessary TO up
hold an unqualified proprietorship. Besides, in
q military sense, control Of the canal can be
effectively exercised from other points than the
actual Atlantic and Pacific entrances. With
San Francisco and Pearl Harbor Hawaii in the
Pacific and San Juan or St. Thomas in the At
lantic as available naval bases, the United
States would easily hold the military keys to
an isthmian waterway. As Senator Morgan
says in his report Of January IS on the Canal
bill now pending in the Senate:
Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. and the harbor Of
San Juan, in Puerto Rico, are the true military
defences of the canal against attack by Euro
pean or Asiatic Powers, and they give more
secure protection TO its eastern and western
outlets than any fortresses, however strong that
can be located at or near its connection with
the sea.
All military authorities here indorse this view
as erninently sound and dismiss as absolutely
idle all talk about the surrender Of American
interests involved in this country's pledge TO
neutralize by international agreement the use.
whether in peace or war. of the proposed ship
channel from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Inquiry to-day shows that If any opposition
to the ratification grounds Of military or
political advantage. existed yesterday. it has
the conditions which must govern the projected
canal enterprise.
REVISION OF CLAYTON-BULwER TREATY.
The new convention. though for all practical
purposes an abrogation Of the Clayton-Bulwer
Treaty. takes the actual form OF revision or
reinterpretation OF that instrument. Only the
With Article OF the Clayton-Bulwer compact
is specifically designated retaining its origi-
nal force. Yet certain features Of the other
articles are re-embodied IN the rules defining the
neutral uses Of the waterway, and the general
principle" which guided the trainers Of the
agreement of 1850 is declared to be still valid
and binding. This general principle"
cepted at ConstantinopIe in 1888 as applicable
70 the operation OF the Suez waterway has
indeed lain at the bottom Of all American eff
forts TO establish the Isthmian canal project on
an unassailable political and commercial basis.
AS Senator Morgan concisely puts II in his
report OF January IS, last:
We owe It TO ourselves and TO the whole world
that whatever canal we shall build and control
on the Isthmus Of Darien shall be as open, free
and neutral TO all nations its corresponding
gateway, the SueZ Canal
Cordially asserting, therefore to a reassertion
Of the paragraphs Of the Clayton-BUlwer Treaty
which pledge the complete naturalization Of the
proposed ship channel, the United States con-
cerned itself only with rewriting that part OF
the convention which made Great Britain a joint
agent in any canal enterprise which might be
undertaken in Central America. The first article
of the treaty OF 1850. which is plainly abrogated
bv the new agreement reads as follows:
Article I. The governments Of the United
States and Great Britain hereby declare that
neither the one nor the other will ever obtain or
maintain for itself any exclusive control over
the said ship canal, agreeing that neither will