The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-12-16
England's Rights and the Nicaragua
Canal.

Editor Of The Times:
Sir.-Your editorial Of this morning. en-
titled 1.-The lingo Argument deals with
subject the Importance Of which cannot
De exaggerated, affecting, as 1T does. the
honor of the United States and involving
The welfare OF both that country and
Great Britain.
So dangerous is popular clanor. so spe'
cious the arguments OF popular agit1torS.
and SO serious the matter under consider
alton. that the conservative forces OF the
country cannot afford to take any save the
strongest ground. No effort should be
made to hold q vulnerable position Yet
that think The Times has done.
The objects cf this communication are
to point out what 1 consider the weakness
OF the position taken by The Times. and
TO indicate the true position, which is uuas-
Sailable.
1t cannot be maintained that the remedS
for a violated treaty lies in an action fol
damages. OF such g ccmpact Webster
| said: "a bargain broken on one side is
broken on all sides II violation OF the
! treaty by Great Britain be admitted, as i,
! must be, then it is truly asserted that the
| Government of the United States IS dis
| charged from fulfilling its part OF tina
| agreement. unless the United States, by ae-
! ton subsequent TO the violations charged,
| has acknowledged the continued validity
| o-t the treaty. That is exactly what has
| been done, and upon that subsequent ac-
Acknowledgement OF the binding character of
| the Convention we may safely rest the
| case in opposition to the lingo policy.
| Briefly stated. the situation Is about "a
follows: 1t is not TO be denied that the
| Convention is antfquated; that Mr.. Clay
| ton was clearly oUtwitte[i 10y Sir Henry
| Bulwer: that the treaty IS Gisadvantageoua
| TO the United States; even that the United
States ratified the treaty under natural
miscoEception of the Interpretation which
| Great Britain put upon certain clauses
| These things are true. but are due to tia
stupid olunderfng OF Mr.. Clayton, ana tn.
| United States cannot plead the incapacity
| of its accredited agent.
| Further, and OF greater Importance. it is
| true that Great Britain concluded treaties
with Honduras, Guatemala and Nlcara-
| qua. acquiring, in violation of the Clayton
| Bulwer Convention. definite rights in
! Belize and retaining supervisory authority
| over the affairs cii AIosQuitolaud. But the
| Americans permitted these negotiations TO
| proceed without protest at the time, and
! Mr.. Buchanan. in his message of 1860 sub
| sequent to these violations by Gredt
| Britain, declares that the discorIant con-
| strUdtiOnS OF the Clayton-BuiWer treaty be-
| tween the two Governments have
| resulted in q final settlement entirely sat
| isfactory to this Government" Thus
effectually stopping any assertion OF multi
| fiCation based upon violation by the British
| Government prior TO 1860
Mr. Blaine and Mr. Frelingnuysen, Sex
| retaries OF State. each erdeavored to re-
| open the case Mr.. Blaine asserted tina,
| new conditions had rendered the treaty
void; he raised certain historical objeC-
tons, and affirmed that Great Britain had
| violated the terms OF the treaty in num-
Der Of instances. Mr.. Blaine, however,
dealt only with the period before 1859. so
! Lord Granville had only TO quote Mr.
| Buchanan's message. and the American
| case fell to the ground.
Mr.. Frelinghuyseu declared that in rails
| ing the Belize settlement to a crown Colo
ny, Great Britain had broken the treaty
thus, as Cle intended, establi4hind Il viola
ton subsequent TO Mr.. Buutianan's mes
sage. But Lord Granville was able to
show that in the Postal Convention Of
1869 the United States had herself recoS-
| nIzSI the legal existence cif the Colony Of
British Honduras Then Mr.. F'reIlugt1uy-
sen attempted to prove that the co-opera-
tive provisions OF Article VIE applied
only 10 previous canal projects and not 10
any plans proposed for the future. But
| Lord Granville pointed out that no period
| had been set to the contract, and so justly
declared such limitations inappLicabIe
Mr. Arthur, expecting favorable event
OF the diplomatic negotiations. had con-
whereby the United States was to build,
own, and control the canal This plan,
however. depended upon 4 modification d
the old convention. and Mr.. Cleveland.
having no hope of securing such changes.
made no attempt 20 carry out The policy
OF his predecessors, tacitlS admitting 4
DirnIomatic defeat ard. Dy implication sht
validity OF the C1ayton-Butwer treaty.
thus putting a further estoppel upon tho
American. case. And there the matte:
rests.
Hence the old convention remains in fun
force to-day and cannot be attacked on the
ground Of past violations by the British
Government, since the Government OK the
United states has oy its OWN action. subse-
auent TO the violations charged, conceded
the continued validity Of the compact
MIG,
Richmond, Va December II, 1900.