New-York tribune., 1900-12-16
CoMPLACENT BRITISH IGNORANCE
LONDON EDITORS AND THEIR VIEWS OF
THINGS AMERICAN

London Dec lS-"The United States have many
able men. but no one OF conspicuous merit" This
statement appears I'm The Daily Mails" Year
Book. Just issued 10 compete with "whitaker's
Almanack. under the section devoted to the
worlds chief statesmen. While not an inspired
or particularly erudite publication it unfortunate
ly represents the bulk OF press and public opinion
in England. Nothing well explains the attitude
of the English press toward American action in
Nicaragua. China and other quarters of the globe
as this crude revelation OF its estimate Of Ameri-
can public men. 1t is this underlying, though sell
dom expressed. belief which permeates the edi-
torials frequently devoted to the policy Of
the Washington Government. How utterly this is
at variance with the opinion of the Foreign Office
and the highest Government officials here is appar-
ent from the fact that in almost every recent
where the English papers have attempted to advise
to forecast the attitude OF their Government
toward propositions suggested by the United
States they have taken exactly the opposite line
from the course eventually pursued by Lord Sails
bury and the Marquis OF Lansdowne. This lack of
sympathy between the Administration leaders and
the Administration papers seems TO broaden daily.
Hence, while the mass of English comments the
Nicaragua Canal question undoubtedly represents
the views Of large section of the public, it must
not be considered in any way official, semi
official.
special cable dispatch from Washington com
plains that the London dispatches dealing with the
Nicaragua Canal do not give any indication OF the
views OF Lord I4andsdowne. the Marquis of Sails
bury any authoritative person. II may be said
that Lord Landsdowne has had every opportunity
TO communicate his views on the matter, but he
has definitely refused. remarking that he did not
wish to attempt interfere. covertly otherwise,
in the formation of American public or legislative
opinion. He has not even discussed the canal in
hs frequent conferences this week with the United
States Ambassador. Joseph II. Choate Great Brit
tains decision. doubtless, will be arrived at only
after a Cabinet conference. What Lord Lans-
will adKiS hfS fell ('ahi To
do depends entirely the final shape in which the
treaty is returned AS the matter stands, 1t would
be equally unsafe TO say he will counsel its rejec
ton or acceptance though, If he follows the ideas
which at present prevail among the permanent
Foreign once officials. he will fall back on the
Clayton -Bulwer Treaty and reject any modification
OF the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty.
In view OF the in South Africa il is
ly surprising that the public refuses to be cajoed
Into taking burning interest in the Nicaragua
Canal in spite OF the special American cable dis
patches. which break the records for length and
seriousness The London Times's' correspondent
to-day makes comparison between the present
stage or affairs and that which existed at the time
OF the Venezuela dispute and arraigns President
Mckinley and the Senate. Yet Lord Pauncefote
has not cabled word TO the Foreign Office which
eyhs only heard n Of The vote on the Davis amendment
and indignant cable messages as most Of the Lon
spondents md no responsive echo in Downing
Street, where dePrecation is freely expressed OF
OF how badly the Senate is alleged TO be treating
their Government. The Foreign Office officials
while expecting the treaty 10 be amended,
frankly surprised at the size of the majority which
served more than anything else to open their eyes
10 the TACT that there no truth in the cabled
statements that the railroad interests solely
responsible for the opposition. that irrational
yngoism had suddenly become epidemic in the
United states, There exists in the Foreign ONCE
a sane appreciation of the American objections to
building the canal and being allowed
fortify H.
Yet at the time" quote official
we do not why the treaty which made
with the people whom believed be the
sponsible representatives of America should be
treated so caVaerly by the Senate. We do not
regard the present issues Of any great i'm
portance. for We doubt If the Nicaragua Canal will
ever De a paying investment. and. whoever builds
It, II will be Of little to England either in peace
or war. What We do regret is the apparent hope
lessness OF making treaties with country whose
Senate takes such opposite views TO those IL
powers TO act In its behalf There be an
Impression in America that the Clayton -Bulwer
treaty was secured by the cuteness of the English
representative and gave England unfair ad-
vantage. That view has existed here. In
bother our heads about the matter till the Senate
finishes It's labors and receive the results
through diplomatic channels. We anxious to
know what America really does want. and until We
know II rs absurd to surmise what to do. How
ever, the Clayton Bulwer Treaty worked satisfac-
torfy for years. and treaties to cause
dissensions in America, maybe il is just we'll II
We are Obliged TO revert to the former agreement.
the oindingness and equity of which we have never
for moment doubted, in spite OF concessions
In the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty