The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-03-10

I control Of the canal. Such an arrange
meut while it is stll desired by some
would he a fatal mistake that would soon
involve the countries in war, or IL Wouiu
enlarge and solidify the scheme OF al
lance that is embodied in the Clayton
Bulwer Treaty into a practical alliance.
offensive and defensive. in the control oil
navigation and the commerce Of the world /
II is these later treaties that present the /
real ground of our present difficulty from
which the convention Of 1900 relieves US
= Danger Pointed out.
II we should abrogate the parts Of the !
. CLAYTON Bulwer Treaty which forbid the
exclusive control of the canal by either
/ Government. thereby removing that re
striction from Great Britain, we would
( deliberately open the door to her natural
! desire to obtain the right Of the exclusive
/ control of the canal under the treaty with (
} Nicaragua concluded in 1860. Great Brlt-
( ain has claim to the exclusive control
/ Of the canal that is very important TO her,
} in that the British possession and the
/ Dominion Of Canada have coasts and great
( seaports in both oceans.
No other nation except the United
[ States could have so great an interest in
| the exclusive right to own and control an
/ isthmian canal, but in this matter, come
! what may. We are compelled 10 assert the
/ superiority OF our right now for the hrSt
time conceded BY Great Britain. IL Is
| wise and just. therefore, that the Value
! of this concession to us should be estl-
mated as a great consideration for any
/ thing we may yield. if we, indeed, yield
ANYTHING. in acquiring the exclusive rlght
/ to control the canal by modihcatioh o'
the Clayton BUlwer Treaty.
The leading powers OF Europe recos-
nized the Importance Of this subject, in re
/ snect of the Suez Canal and ordained
/ nuhlic international act for its neutrallza-
1 tion that is an honor TO the civilization OF
! the age 1t is the benedcent work OF an
! Europe and not OF Great Britain aiohe.
! Whatever canal is built in the lsthmus oil
! Darien will be. ultimately, made SUBJECT
! 10 the same law of freedom and neutrality
as governs the Suez Canal as part Oh the
laws of nations, and no single power VIII
! be able 10 resist its control. Ihe EURO
: mean powers gave to this subject the gredt-
I est consideration and reached conclusions
that are not open to criticism as being un-
I lust to any nation in the world
! Turkey and Egypt, the imperial ana tne
] local sovereigns of the canal and Great
Rrit,in a controlling stockholder in the
: Maritime Canal Company, had special IN
{ terests in the rules for regulating the use
of the canal and they united IN the con-
vention which deprived them OF ezcep-
= tioual privileges in its navigation, IN
peace and in war for the sake OF justice
TO all maritime nations and the peace
and prosperity Of the world.
No nation disapproves OF this great act
or has had grounds of complaint against
II No American will ever be found 10
couplafu OF it, 1t is right In its moral
features. in its impartiality, and. ab5Ne an
( in its tendency to decrease the resort 10
war for the settlement OF international
quarrels. and ii will have the oordlai ap-
. proval of the American people.
/ The United States cannot take an atyl-
,ude of opposition to the principles Of the
. Great ACT of Ocober %. 1888 without dis
/ crediting the official declarations OF our
/ Government for fifty years on the neutrall-
~ of an isthman canal in time of war ana
its equal use by all nations, without dis-
I elimination. at ali times
'To set up the selfish motive OF gam oy
/ establishing a monopoly Of highway lhat
must derive its income from the patronage
of an maritime countries would be un-
worthy of the United States if we owned
| tho country through which the canal Is TO
be built.
.But the location Of the canal belongs
to other Governments, from whom we must
obtain any right to construct a canal on
their territory. and it is not unreasonabIe'
II The question was new and was not in
. a
| Britaln. that she should question the Ilsht
Of oven Nicaragua and Costa Rica to grant
To our ships Of commerce and OF war eX-
I rraordfuarv privileges OF transit through
the canal.
IT is not reasonable to suppose that
/ Nicaragua and Costa Rca would grant 10
the United States the exclusive control OF
canal through those States on terms less
generous to the other maritime nations
than those prescribed in the great act OF
October %. 1883; OF if we could compel
them to give us such advantages over other
nations il would not be crediJable to our
country to accept them.
one Question Presented.
THAT our Government or our people will
furnish the money to build the canal pre-
sents the single question whether it is
profitable to DO so. II the canal as prop
/ erty. is worth more than its cost. we are
not called on to divide the profits with
other nations If it is worth less and we
are compelled by national necessities to
! build the canal. we have no right TO call
on other nations to make up the loss to US.
In any view it is venture that we VIII
enter upon if it is to our interest. and II
il is otherwise we will withdraw from IT'S
further consideration.
If We owned the canal from Greytown
10 Brito. and if each port was protected
by fortress. it would impose upon US
I the necessity Of permanent garrison to
hold them. Otherwise the canal would fall
into the hands of local military adyentur-
ers. O. those from neighboring States
with the military police provided for
| bv The United States in this convention
for the protection Of the canal, its defence
can be perfect against any foreign powei
! that is not strong enough TO occupy the
4 country. and hold it against all comers
In any event, il wars are to come that
Z will involve the ownership. or control, OF
the canal or the right Of passage through
/ il no battle should ever be fought in the
| region near to il. To make the canal
/ battle-ground is necessarily to expose it TO
/ destruction and the erection Of fortresses
for its protection will invite hOstlities to
| it's locality.
Costa Rica and Nicaragua. with our as
eistauco. can always protect the canal
| against attack by land and our fleets are
Z the only safe reliance TO repel an attack
/ from the sea. In either case, IL the canal
/ is the objective Of the attack, its defence
must be made at a distance from its line
Z of location in order 10 save il from de
/ struCtou.
But the real danger to the canal from
| the absence of fortitcations. is so slight
! and improbable that its discussion appears
/ to be unnecessary. 1t is scarcely cOuceiv-
! able that Great Britain would send a fleet
| across the Atlantic 10 attack our Western
coasts. or across the Pacific to attack our
! Eastern coasts.
In either case We could concentrate our