The times., 1900-12-27
Our Christmas GIFT TO England.

Referring TO the amended Hay-Paunce-
fote Treaty, which is in course of trans
mission to the British Foreign Office, the
New York Sun says:
''Ncither al the holidsv stas0n. Aor AZ any other
time Of year, dia nation ever offer TO ar
otifcr nation gift Of such magnitude that
which goes across the Atlantic by toda! ;
steamer
Cur contemporary is entirely right. It
is stupendous, momentous present; but
it cannot be said to be national except in
the official sense. The treaty making pow
er, consisting of the American President
and the Senate, has presented it in the
name of the people. who. if they could
have their way about the matter, would
send a plain and direct abrogation of the
Clayton-BulYer Treaty. and a certified
copy of the Hepburn Morgan Nicaragua
Canal bill enacted into law instead.
Great as the gift is, there are persons
on both sides of the Atlantic who predict
that it will be rejected with scorn by the
Salisbury Government. These pessimists
may be propheticaily inspired, but we
doubt it. 1t hardly seems likely that any
power would throw away such benefit as
the one offered by America at great loss
10 herself. The Sun" says:
''what is proposed2 To construct across the
Central American isthT"us at the exclusive risk
and sole expense of the United States. at cost
ahoRt equal to the entire enormous expenditure
of the United kingdom for her combined army
and navy during the past year Of war, water
way much needed by the worlds commerce. i'm
which Great Britain has by far the largest direct
interest; and TO open and keep open this canal
for the use of Great ISitain and all maritime
tions on terms of absolute equality with our
selves In every commercial respect. and also in
every military respect not affecting our supreme
duty Of national self-defeDce.''
The hay -Pauncefote gratuity even goes
further in evidence of our confidence in
and dependence upon Great Britain than
would appear from the closing sentence
of the paragraph last quoted. There is
much ambiguity about the Davis amend
ment. which is rather violently construed
here to mean that in case of war, our ma
tional territory being threatened, we
might close the canal to an enemy.
Whether, in practice, We could do so
would depend largely upon the consent of
the other party. Should the canal be
built under the conditions prescribed in
the amended Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, 1t
would be under the domination of Great
Britain's ships and fortifications in ad-
jacent waters. That power also would
always have the advantage Of her Crown
Colony OF British Honduras as base for
land operations against us. The United
States must not fortify, occupy, or ac-
quire territory, or assume or exercise
sovereignty anywhere in Central Ameri-
ca. England has done all these things In
violation of the Clayton Bulwer agree
fnent which we generously now revive to
our detriment, but not to England's
The oyertures of such a Santa Claus as
Uncle Sam is to his trans Atlantic rela-
tives this last year of the century we do
not believe will be spurned. Instead of
offending him, we feel confident that the
new, enlarged, and revised Hay-Paunee-
fote Treaty will not only delight the noble
Marquis of Salisbury, but Will encour-
age him to expect voluntary and "un-
solicited" offer from the State Depart
ment to surrender what territory we have
rema ining In Alasks to John Bull, as a
Mckinley inaugural gift.