The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1900-12-16
NOT I1STOiPIIL, BUT iEEACH OF
FAITH.

FAITH.
In another column we publish an intelli-
gent discussion by one of our readers Of
the proposed violntion Of England's rights
in the Nicaraguan Canal which our
LIMOGES threaten to make. Our CORE
spondent entirely agrees with US in think
ing that what is proposed would be
violation Of the rights OF England. hut he
puts his conclusions upon grounds wholly
different from ours. He thinks England
has made such violations Of the Clayton
Bulwer treaty as would have justified
this country, when she made them. in de-
caring the treaty at an end. but be
thinks that we condoned the violations
when they were made and are now
estoDpetl to claim the mbr0gation of the
treaty upon that ground. If that We're
the only ground upon which we saw rea-
son 10 differ with our jinsoes, we are not
so sure we could condemn their proposed
action. 1t is Il very serious matter to
claim an esto7pel against d great nation
in its international affairs. and very
clear as well as very serious case would
have 10 be made out before we could con-
sent 20 say that our Government was
estopped 10 take any proposed course of
action in matter deeply affecting the
interests of the whole people. We can
not consent therefore, TO place our objec-
lion to what is proposed upon the sugges-
tons of our correspondent. but we remain
perfectly firm and clear that it would be
a violation of the agreement we have
made with England and breach Of faith,
therefore, with her.
We have already pointed out the kinds
of violation of a treaty that will justify
one pnrty 10 it abrogating it. and the kinds
that will not justify one party to it abro-
eating ii. but we will point them out
again.
When two nations have treaty that
| lays down a rule of action for the future,
| one of those nations may abrogate that
treaty and put an end to ii whether the
other has given good cause for it or
whether it has not But when two nations
have had differences and enter into a
treaty whereby each makes concessions
to the other to end and adjust those diff
ferences, neither can thereafter abrogate
that treaty so far as it has fixed the
rights of each. II that treaty contains
st:pulations binding each 10 do or not to
do certain things and one of them VIC
lates those stipulations the other cannot,
therefore, declare the treaty ended and
take back what it had conceded by it as
the consideration for settlement of the
differences Those concessions have be-
come forever the rights Of the other ma
ton The nation supposing itself aggrev-
ed must hold the other nation RESPONSE
BILE for its violation OF its agreements, but
what was conceded by the treaty must
forever remain the right OF the other ma
ton. Our recent treaty with Spain VII
afford q ready Illustration of the princi-
ple. Spain may claim that we have
failed 10 do some OF the things in Cuba,
Porto Rico and the Philippines which are
stipulated by that treaty that We would
thereafter do But Spain bought her
peace with US 9y giving up Cuba and
deciding to US Porto Rico and the Phil
!ppines ana because we fail to do some
Of the things we agreed TO do in the
future, she cannot declare the treaty
ended and resume possession Of the
islands. Their status was forever fixed
by The treaty, and she got her price for
concession in the peace We made with her.
So it is with the Clayton-Bulwec treaty.
Before 1t was entered into, England
claimed that she had certain exclusive.
rights there. and we claimed that we had
certain exclusive rights there. Nc went
into negotiations over the subject and
arrived at a settlement in which each ma
ton made concessions to the other, and
what each conceded, being conceded upon
valuable consideration, became the prop
crtv right of the other and can never be
revoked by the coneedtns nation. These
are elementary principles that lie at the
foundation of ali social order, and they
aoply in the transactions of nations 1ust
as >foreibly as in The transactions ol iu
dividuals.
We cannot take from England what we
conceded her by the Clayton-Bu.w2r
treaty any more than we can take from
h.r what we conceded 10y the WEBSTER
-Ashburton treaty settling the boundary
of the northwestern frontier. The terri
tory she acquired by that treaty must re-
main hers forever. and If she N.o ttes
st!pulations in the treaty III respect to the
future, We must hold her responsible FOR
those violations.
-=-=----==----=.==----=--==----