The times., 1900-12-18
Circulation Statement.
A French Misunderstanding.


logic. and British overreaching and per
fidy. why the leading statemen and jurist!
of this country do not regard, and for 4
long time have not regarded, the so-calleC
Clayton Buiwer Treaty as in being, or il
any sense binding upon the United States
They are aware, as we are. that, in g
strained technical sense the old conyen'
tion may be claimed to be in force simply
upon the ground that its violation and
notification by Great Britain in 1862 have
never been formally acted upon by the
Government of the United States. They
also know that irregularity, corruption,
and secretion, in keeping what the Clay
ton-Bulwer negotiators knew to be an
agreement between them fatal TO their
purpose If not secured, and fatal to ratiii-
cation If divulged to the Senate, tainted
the whole business with fraud. and, as far
as Secretary Clayton's connection with it
was concerned, with unconstitutionality.
Immediately upon learning-which it
did not for two years, or such matter,
afterward-that secret article had been
agreed 10 between Clayton and Bulwer,
purporting to vary and altogether TO
change the terms and meaning OF the
convention as presented to the Senate
for ratification. Congress would have been
justified in passing a resolution abrogat-
ing the treaty entirely
As our readers by this time are thor
oughiy advised, the Clayton Bulwer Con-
yention, in the only form it was ever
acted upon by. the Senate, distinctly and
,He oil ct.
ers never TO acquire territory. OF to col
onize, fnrtify. occupy, or in any way to
exercise control or sovereignty over any
part Of Nicaragua, Costa Rica, or in any
part of Central America. A more sweep
ing prohibition could not have been
framed. Because Of it. and in considera-
ticn OF the apparently complete agree
ment Of Great Britain to forego terri
toriai ambitions on the Isthmus. of which
pect that Power the American Senate OF
the day was willing TO accept the terms
prescribed. But, if it had been known
that the British Government would rely
upon a suppressed article, of which the
final treaty-making power of the United
States had neither notice nor knowledge.
to ignore and violate the plain terms of
the treaty, it is notorious, and was de-
clared in Congress in 1852, that it never
would have been ratified
Under that corrupt. non-operative. and
secret clause, which pretended to recog-
nize the immunity of Great Britain from
the operation OF the treaty as applied to
the Belize, and the Bay Islands. the Brit
ish Government violated and abrogated
it in 1852, when We were involved in a
civil war and could not effectually resist
its act Of bad faith.
All these things, We say, are well
enough known to the diplomats of Europe,
and among them to the diplomats of
France. Equal light on the subject has
not dawDed upon the exponents of French
opinion as represented in the Partisan
press. For example leading writer of
the journal des Debats,' NJ. Aleide
Ebray, thus criticises the attitude of the
American Senate. and. if he did but know
1t. that Of practically the whole Of the
American people. He says:
'iAs friend Of America permit me to call at
tention TO phase OF the question: namely
tie failure 10 observe the treaty made With
9pother Power II the United States enters upon
such course, all diplomatic communication be-
cen America and the Old World will certainly
become very difficult. Thus though the crowd
lay rejoice over the rebuff dealt 10 England.
atesmen will take a comprehensive view
7 the situation and remark, hodie tibi, cras
iih''
No intelligent French or other Cor
mental editor or writer would ever think
If using such language in connection with
.he United States and its relations to the
Clayton Buiwer Convention, if he were in
formed concerning the facts. This is not
z country in the habit of breaking its
treaty obligations to other civilized States
1t is true that We did abroeaie our treaty
of alliance of 17sS with France. when the
men of the French Revolution called upon
US to take up arms in defence of that move
meut. under conditions notoriously never |
by the treaty. 1t is equally |
true THAI we violated and abrogated our
treaty of peace and commerce with China. |
IN passing the Chinese i .clusion law The |
latter was an act dictated by the neces-
sity Of self-preservation. We were con- |
fronted with the alternative of abrogation |
or war, al the option Of the Chinese Gov |
ernment We could not tolerate the Mon |
golian deluee which was fast rolling to |
ward US. We had to and did stop it. as |
far as legislation could accomplish the OBJ |
5eet. We do not hold that It was course |
approved by accepted authorities on in |
ternational law; but IL was imperative. and |
the United States deliberately accepted aI! |
possible consequences in adopting It,
With the exceptions noted this country !
has been loyal and punetllious in living up |
10 its treaty obligations Especially has !
this been true Of our international rela-
lions with Great Britain. Early In the |
now expiring century. anu for several years |
before its opening. England continually |
her treaties with us. in selling !
our citizens on the high seas and impress
ing them into the British navy in main
tanning fortified posts within our boun-
caries contrary TO the conditions Of the !
Treaty OF Paris of 1888. and in various
other ways. Later, during the American |
civil war. Great Britain did ali possible 10
foster the cause OF secession and TO de-
stroy our commerce and our Union By fl
ting out and arming Confederate cruisers
manned for the most part by British
subjects. 10 prey upon our merchant ma
Eine. And, during that same war, Eng
land did what she would not dare TO dc
had We been at peace. She tore the Clay
ton Bulwer Treaty into shreds, and buried