The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-02-07
REPEAL OF THE CLAYTON-BULwER
TREATY

Tie explicit statement from Washington,
confirmed by dispatches from London.
shows that the celebrated Clayton Bulwer
treaty has been abrogated in its most i'm
portant and embarrassing feature. 1t has
been replaced by a new treaty which will
be known in history as the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty, from the names of it's negotiators
Fuller information and future events will
probably show this to be one of the great
est diplomatic achievements of the present
administration, which has already achieved
several.
No treaty ever entered into by the United
States has caused as much friction or been
regarded with so much disfavor by Amer
lean statesmen and publicists as the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty. negotiated In April, 1850,
by Secretary of State Clayton on the part
of the United States and Sir Edward Bull
wer on the part Of Great Britain. It's
avowed purpose was to prevent dissensions
regarding proposed canals and railways
across the American isthmus, but 1t did
this IN a way that proved very embarrass-
ing to the United States. Mr.. Clayton was
President Taylors secretary of state. and
in transmitting the treaty to the Senate on
April %, 1850. the President said:
Its object is to establish a commercial al
lance with all great maritime states for
the protection of a contemplated ship canal
through the territory of Nicaragua to con-
meet the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and at
the same time to insure the same protection
to the contemplated railways or canals by
MT nr nd Do
well as by every other interoceanic COM
munication which may be adopted to short
en- the transit to or from our Territories on
the Pacific. The treaty gives no preference
the same measure of protection for all
which ingenuity and enterprise can con-
struct.
Other expressions showed that the adj
ministration which negotiated the treaty
was rather proud of it. Unfortunately
however. the equal protection which it
guaranteed for transisthmian canals and
railways prevented the United States from
ever constructing one on its own account.
The treaty itself declares that its purpose
was mot only to accomplish a particular
object. but to establish general prin-
ciple." BY it the United States and Great
bIlldln JOINTLY utcidIeu tndt -neltner the
one nor the other will ever obtain or main
| tain for itself exclusive control over the
projected ship canal" There were other
provisions of q similar character, the effect
! of which was to prevent the United States
from constructing or controlling a canal
| across the isthmus without the consent and
cooperation of Great Britain. The treaty
| had hardly been ratified before questions
of construction began to arise under it,
and from that time TO the present 1T has
been a source OF friction and embarrass-
ment. 1t may have been wise at the time.
but changing conditions made it very irk-
some to the United States. Nevertheless.
IL continued to be accepted as binding until
| November. 1851. when Mr. Blaine wrote 10
| Mr.. Lowell our minister TO Great Britain,
| ground that 1t was framed thirty years be-
fore under circumstances that no longer
existed; that the development OF the Pa
| cific coast had enormously increased the in
terest of the United States In the canal.
| and that the well-being of this country de-
4 tht dtiOooti'itf oas ct itaSt' iid
| terial modification Of the treaty. But Great
/ Britain declined to consent TO any modifi-
| cation of the treaty and gave reasons for
regarding 1t as still in force treaty Is
| a very solemn and binding compact and
| not easily got rid of except by agree
ment Of both parties to Ii. This treaty con-
tanned no provision whatever for its re-
peal. or for its abrogation by previous no.
tice. or anything Of that kind. In these