New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-12-19

serious form. Congress realizing that the Clay
| ton-Bulwer Treaty was an obstacle to the con-
| struetion of a purely American canal AT MIC
| araeIla such as Presidents Grant ana Hayes
| had recommended first INDUCED I'm much ABUSE
/ OF the Taylor Administration for making the
| treaty and OF the Buchanan Administration LOT
not abrogating IL, and then adopted JOINT reso-
luton calling upon the President to take steps
for abrogation. The execution of this mandate
was undertaken i'm the succeeding administra-
lions by Secretaries Blaine and FrelinShuysen-
In the long diplomatic controversies that en-
sued the United States did not attempt arbi-
| frarglv 70 break the convention. regardless OF
Great Rritain's will bet sought TO gain British
assent 10 abrogation British recognition OF
the alleged fact that the treaty had practically
lapsed through violation OF its terms ana
through it's own inehiciency for the accom-
nlishment of its objects. Mr.. Blaine. in Novem-
her 1881 writing 10 Mr.. Lowell. after pointing
out the unsatisfactory character and effect OF
the treaty stated the United States attitude
toward the canal as follows:
For self-protectIon 10 her own interests, the
T-nited states asserts I'm the first instance. her
right 40 control the Isthmus transit And, sec
oFldly. she offers by such control that absolute
naturalization Of the canal as respects European
Powers which in no other way he GER
tainy attained and lastingly assured
And in urging. ten days later, modification
of the Clayton Bulwer Treaty, he wrote:
II will be seen that from the time OF it's con-
clusion in 1850 until the end of 1898 its pro-
visions were thrice made the basis of proposai
to arbitrate as 10 their meaning, that modnca-
ton and abrogation have been alike cOntingenrly
considered. and that it's vexatious and Imperfect
character has been repeatedly recognized on
10th sides.
Mr.. Frelinghuysen was even more Outspokeh'
declaring that repeated British violations of the
r. had made If If not
tually void At least voidable at the pleasure OF
the United States He summarized his argu-
ments with Great Britain as follows, in letter
TO Mr.. Hall. in July, 1884:
The Clayton Bulwer Treaty was voidable at
the option of the United States. This, think,
has been demonstrated fully on two grounds.
First that the consideration OF the treaty having
failed its object never having been accom-
plished the United States did not receive that /
for which they covenanted: and second, that
Great Britain has persistenLiy vl0is,ea ; m11
agreement not 10 COLOMBO the Central American
coast
The British reply was terse and positive. Her
Maiestys Government declined 10 give its AS
sent 10 abrogation, but regarded the treaty as
still ''intrinscally sound and applicable to the
present state of affairs" And meantime, in
1881. Great Britain got Nicaragua to submit /
their controversies 10 the arbitration o. the
Austrian Emperor. who decided in favor of
Great Britain and reconfirmed the British
protectorate over Mosquito.
Such has been, in lis salient features, the
story of attempted abrogation. 1t cannot be
said that il is on the whole creditable to Amer
lean diplomatic acumen or 10 the resolution and
consistency of American Governmental policy.
The final chapter of ii has yet 10 be written; or
is perhaps, even now being written. II ought
TO be possible 10 make 1t more creditabe 10
this country and more cOnsonant with the
policies adopted by this country quarter of n
century before the treaty was negotiated. and
at the same time no less, but actually more,
promotive Of lasting peace and friendship be-
tween the two signatory Powers.