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

! TO interrupt. or. DARING to break it, it viii
/ find that our easily marshaled powers will
! quickly unite through this highway of
| the world; and on land and sea they will
! be greater for our defence than all the
maritime powers will De for the attack.
| In the time of war, as in times of
peace, the commefce oSi the world will ass
1 through its portals in perfect security. en-
| riching all the nations. and we of the
! English people Will either forget that this
! grand work has ever cost US a day OF
| bitterness: or We will rejoice that our
| contentious have delayed our progress
| until the honor has fallen to our grand
| republic to number this among our best
| works for the good OF mankind.
1T is not what remains of the Clayton
| Bulwer Treaty that makes this convention
necessary; as much as the identical treat
| les Of the United States and Great Britain
j with Nicaragua in pursuance OF the Clay
| tom Bulwer Treaty, which were concluded
| in 1860 and in 1867. These latter treaties
| created new conditions that stand in the
| way of our exclusive control OF the canal.
| and should be removed"
The committee, the report continues. are
in fun accord with the purpose expressed
| in Article III of the pending convention to
adopt as the basis of naturalization the
| indicated rules substantially as embodied
navigation of the Suez Canal
! Sections 1 to OF Article II Of the
| treaty now under consideration set out
| the rules of neutrality. prohibition OF hos
| tilities, and rights of passage OF the war
: vessels of belligerents. substantially the
same with those expressed in the Treaty
! of Constantinople. But Article y, of the
| Treaty of Constantinople, prescrbes limi-
| tations of the utmost Importance upon the
| stpulations.
| This provides:
| That the provisions OF neutrality as set forth
| shall not interfere with the which His
| Majesty, the Sultan. and His Eighnesr, the
! khedyc, in the name Of His imperial Majesty.
| and within The limits OF the firmans granted,
might find it necessary to take for securing by
| their forces the defence OF Egypt, and the
maintenance OF public order
In case His Imperial Majesty. the Sultan. or
! His llighness. the khedvc, should find II neccs-
J ssry to avail themselves of the exceptions for
which this article provides. the siguatory powers
| of the declaration of London shall be notified
| thereof by the Imperial Ottoman Government.
! 1t is likewise understood that the provisions Of
| the four articles aforesaid shall in no case oc-
! casion any obstacle to the measures which the
| Imperial Ottoman Government may think il neces-
sary to take in order TO ensure by its own forces
| the defence of its other possessions, situated on
| the eastern coast Of the Red Sea.
No equivalent limitations are specifical-
| iy expressed in the convention now under
consideration" says the report. 1T may
| be argued with considerable force that
these limitations are implied by the gem
eral declaration in Article II of the i'm
) pending treaty, and that its basis is sub
| stantially the Treaty of Constantinop.e.
| But this contention is not. in the opinion
| of your committee. so clearly correct that
| the question, or the right. can be safely
! left to inference or implication.
To Remove All Doubt.
THE committee think it prudent that
! all doubt be removed by an amendment
| equivalent in its substance and effect to
the precedent afforded by Article X of the
Treaty of Constantinopie. which it cannot
! be supposed was intended to have no place
/ in the pending convention.
I'm principle the same reasons which
| justified Article X in the Treaty Of Con-
stantinople require that it's equivalent shall
| be included in the pending treaty. II it
was proper that the Treaty OF Constanti-
! nople should not interfere with the meas
! ures which the Sultan and Khedive might
I find it necessary to take by securing for
| their own forces the defence of Egypt and
the maintenance OF public order. or if II
| was proper that the provisions of the nu-
| merate articles of that treaty should in
! no case occasion any obstacle to the meas
ures which the Imperial Ottoman Govern
} ment may think il necessary 10 take in
i order to ensure by its own forces the de-
/ fences of its own situation on the eastern
! coast of the Red Sea- surely the situation
/ of the United States on both oceans. and
! as to the territory to be occupied by the
| canal ITSELF requires the incorporation into
! the pending convention OF stipulations
! equivalent to those in Article Y OF the con-
| vention of Constantinople.
"It was deemed wise to reserve to the
| Ottoman Empire the right to impend the
! operations of the treaty in certain speci-
! fed contingencies for the purpose OF de-
I Tending Egypt by its own forces and main
| tanning public order; and for the purpose
| OF securing by it's own forces the defence
/ ii its other possessions situated on the
eastern coast Of the Red Sea. 4 coast l. 100
| miles in length, with Turkish possessions
! of both coasts of nearly 100000 square
miles. inhabited by 1900. 900 of its sub
! jeets in Egypt and in the provinces OF
| Hedjaz and Yeman on the eastern coast
! of the Red Sea.
| The same considerations in principle
! sustain the contention that the pending
! treaty should contain equivalent stipula-
! tions. Irrespective of the foregoing con-
/ sideratious. your committee is clearly OF
| the opinion that IL Article X did not exist
/ the true interests and security of the
/ btattS upOh thc htShtot
! considerations of prudence and right. the
! adoption Of the amendment herewith pro-
| posed
| An addendum TO the report gives the
| text OF the SueZ Canal Treaty and the four
| articles of agreement as 10 it's use sug-
| gested by Great Britain in despatch
| dated January 3, 1883, to its representa-
| tives at Paris, Berlin. Vienna, Rotterdam
| and St. Petersburg. These documents are
| printed for the purpose OF making clear
I the application of the amendment to the
pending treaty reported yesterday by the