Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-12-12
THE FACTS AS TO THE CLAYTON
BULwER TREATY.


The valued Richmond Times Is very
strenuous in its advocacy of the Hay
Pauncefote treaty. and in it's assertion
that the Clayton-B ulwer treaty is still
binding upon this country. In it's ex-
cess of zeal 1t threatens the United
States with the dread vengeance of the
naughty and imperious Briton If the
Nicaragua canal is not made a neutral
waterway: the astounding proposition
is advanced that Great Britain has
certain fixed and vested rights in any
canal that may be built through Near
aqua, etc." to build and fortify the
canal would be IAN Infamous breach of
faith. ETC."
Now. the merits of this question are
not at all complicated. The Clayton
Bulwer treaty is or is not binding. If
it Is not binding, then England has no
rights under 1t, vested" or otherwise.
"A treaty is merely a compact between
nations and is binding only so long as
its terms are not violated by either
party to It, 1t can be abrogated not
only by the specific declaration of
either party to 1t. but by violation
- 49, 80 A''S ~ itiiSt PoitS lHC lliltS
cites the following article of the treaty
as the one that binds the United States
not to fortify the Nicaragua canal:
The Government of the United
States and Great Britain hereby de-
| clare that neither the one nor the other
will ever obtain or maintain for itself
any exclusive control over the ship
| canal agreeing that neither will ever
! erect or maintain any Notifications
commanding the same, or in the vicin-
| NY thereof. or occupy. or fortifyo or colo
! nisc, or assent TO- or cTorciSc any dominion
| ortr Nicaragua. Costa Rico, The Mosquito
COAST. or any part Of Central America. etc.,
The italics are ours. 1t will be noted
that England snlemnly bound herself
not to exercise any dominion over any
part OF Central America" II she
should do so II would amount TO an
abrogation of the treaty, according to
all international law and usage. What,
then. are the facts? Subsequent to the
signing of this treaty by the parties to
1t Great Britain seized q part of the
territory of Honduras and has erected
1t into a crown colony. 1t was as
plain and as insolent violation of the
very clause under which England now
claims rights as could be imagined
And yet our esteemed Richmond con-
temporary. which is shriclting epithets
at It's own country. says never word
of this high handed proceeding by
which England abroGatcd the treaty as
effectually as she could have done by
| formal declaration.
| OF course II England feels disposed to
| go to war because the United States
declines to be bound by treaty that
was ahrogated by England's act in 1862,
| and her continued exercise OF domin-
ion over a part of Central America"
that is her privilege. If she believes
that vested rights" under a treaty she
snapped her fingers at in 1862 are worth
Canada. she has but to throw down the
| E0uge of battle. But this takes the
whole question out of the domain of
| facts into the domain of focre, where
treaty or other rights count for moth
| ing. The facts are conclusive that the
Clayton Bulwer treaty has not been for
thrty-eight years worth the paper IT.
| was written on.