The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-02-22
THE NICARAGUA TREATY.

The Hay Pauucefoto treaty Is still re-
ceiving the serious consideration OF con-
gress and the objections thereto are evil
IDENTIFY considered worthy Of thoughtful
discussion The question really involved.
as clearly stated by the indianapolis SEN
tinel. is whether we can afford to make
any treaty on the subject-whether, even
II Grea, Britain we're to make every con-
cession we asked. we could arord to ac-
cept any concessions from her-whether
we can afford to admit that she has auy-
thing to concede That was ths central
mistake Of the Clayton Bulwer treaty. and
tAis treaty, II it does not revive the Clay
ton -Buiwer treaty, does worse. 1t re-
enacts all the Objectionable features Of
that treaty and gives them fresh stand
ing In the eyes OF the world at a time
when the preservation OF the Monroe doc
true is OF special Importance. The re-
lations Of the new treaty and the Clayton
| Bulwer treaty are probably better stated
| by Mr.. Joseph Nlmmo than by any one else
who has discussed the question thus far
He says:
The Clayton Bulwor treaty provides tnas
mother Great Britain nor the uhiteu
States shall ever erect or maintain any
fortihcations commanding the same, or in The
vicinity thereof" II also provides that nellh-
er country VIII ever assume or exercise any
dominion over Nicaragua Costa Rica, the
Mesquite coast, OF any part OF Central
America" The Hay Pauneetote treaty con-
firms this provision IN even more specific ana
emphatic terms But all this goes In the face
of the nxed public sentiment OF this country
that the Nicaragua canal, Il built, shall be
strictly an American canal This senu-
mont Is clearly expressed In both bills now
before congress, the ono in the senate old
the other In the house Of representatives..
Those two bills distinctly provide for an
American canal In the following common eX-
pression--"control OF such portion OF territory
now belonging to Costa Rica and Nicaragua
rs may be desirable and necessary on whicl
to eXcavate, construct and defend canal
But the clayton. Bulwer treaty, as just stated
positively forbds any such control or defons,
Of any - aqua canal aud the day'Pauhce'
fote treaty IN even stronger terms confirms
this inhibition.
In one sense Great Britain is more in
, teIosted in the canal than We are. She
has vast excess Of the carrying trade
and the canal will be OF use to any coun-
try in proportion to its use by that coun-
try's shipping. This disproportion is
marked. or course American shipping
shows at its best in our own foreign trade,
and the returns for 1898 show that the
tonnage entered in our ports In that year
was 81 per cent British and only 20 per
cent American. The Oriental carrying
trade is more nearly shown by the tom
mage passing through the suez canal, and
OF that. In 1898, there was 6S per cent
British and less than one hundredth of 1
per cent American. II is evident there
fore that so far as the mere commercial
advantages Of the canal are concerned
Great Britain would gain far more by its
construction than VIC would, and II the
canal were built by private capital or
owned and managed by private parties,
Il is very certain that It would soon pass
under British control Just as the suez
canal did. The only way out is for the
American government to build the canal
and hold control OF 1t without asking the
consent OF any European nation or course
Its use for commercial purposes should
be allowed to all corners on equal terms.
but there should be no question about It's
being an United States canal, and subject
; to United States control.