The evening times., 1900-05-02
WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1900
The Canal Debate.

AS might have been expected. the de-
bate on the Hepburn Nicaragua Canal bill
in the House OF Representatives yesterday,
disclosed the bitter opposition Of the Ad-
ministration to an American inter- oceanic
waterway under any conditions. But for
the undoubted fact that the Republican
party is in violent revolt on this subject.
the trust leaders in the House would have
entirely suppressed Mr. Hepburn and his
measure. Being compelled to let it come 70
hearing. the discussion shows for itself
how determined the Administration is to
stand by its benefactors, the enemies of
the canal
We are glad to see that the author CT
the bill has been brave enough to assail
the position of his adversaries without
mincing words about IT, His denunciation
OF the alleged Clayton-Bulwer Treaty yes
terday. was strong enough to make the
opposition vince, and TO call forth pro-
test from the McKlnley-Salisbury manager
on the floor. Mr.. Hepburn declared that
the agreement in question had ceased to
be operative. even if 1t ever was SO, be-
cause conditions had totally changed in
the fifty years since its formulation. En-
gland had violated it. and neither party
had attempted to carry out its provisions.
He might have gone farther and asserted
with truth that the Clayton -Bulwer
Treaty was void from its inception. be-
cause. through fraud on the part CT The
American negotiator. it never w& con-
stitutionally ratified by the Senate. A Sc
cret article between Secretary Clayton and
the British Foreign Office provided that
the sweeping terms OF the public treaty,
prohibiting Great Britain from acquiring
territory in Central America. we're not to
be understood to apply to the Bay Islands,
the Mosquito Settlement. or what is now
Honduras. That secret agreement, if
known to the Sena-e, would have killed
the treaty, so it was withheld. Clayton
wiekedly and perfidiously assumed au-
thority to amend the convention as rati-
fed by the Senate, in granting TO the Brit
ish Government this release from the
most vital consideration expressed in the
instrument. In accepting such treaehery
the other party was not ignorant of the
fact that it could not bind the United
States. Either the Clayton -Bulwer Treaty
never came into legal being because it
was not constitutionally ratified or. if IL
was ever binding. it was so strictly Under
its terms as presented to and voted upon
by the Senate. In the latter event it has
been dead and buried ever since those
terms. absolutely essential to the validity
of the contract. were violated by Great
Britain in establishing the Crown Colony
of British Honduras
This is the sacred obligation under
which we are bound to our dearly beloved
Mother Country, and which Chairman Hit
of the House Committee on Fo, sign Af-
fairs thinks it would be a sin for us to
ignore, But he knows. as well as do Mr.
Mckinley Mr.. Hay. and other advocates Of
British Canal or none at all, that the
lot OF them realize the utter worthlessness
OF the sO-calIed Clayton 3ulwer Treaty.
and are trying 10 enact it de noVo after
the lapse Of half century. through the
shameless Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.
One incident of yesterdays debate Illus
trates the hypocrisy OF the Administration
attitude toward the American Canal pro-
position. and is typical of the strategy
that is being used TO defeat it. Represen-
tdtlFe Loren flelcHeT OF minnesota, de-
clared himself as violently favorable to
canal. but said that he felt we ought to
wait for the formal report of the Walker
Commission next winter or next year be-
fore acting Mr. Fletcher stated that the
people Of the district he represented very
much wanted the canal This, we are sure,
was the truth, but not all the truth.
There is one man in the North Star State
who has more power and weight in the
Republican party than all the rest OF the
organization in that Commonwealth put
together. The person alluded to is the
trans-continental railway magnate, James
J. Hill. Whatever the common people of
Mr.. Fletchcr's district may want is OF
little consequence, compared with what
Mr. Hill does not want, and it is under
stood that he has impressed the Admins
tratiOn quite deeply with his views on
the isthmian canal question. His decided
preference appears to be for northern
railway transportation across the conti
neat. as opposed to water transportation
via a Nicaragua Canal. Mir. Fletcher no
doubt would fraLSly deny that he could
be influenced against the Hepburn bill by
the wishes or interests os his plutocratic
felinY-citizen; but such things do have
their effects upon legislation in a Con-
gress the majority in which is owned
controlled. and operated by the trusts and
mOnopolies-