The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-02-07
United States to Have No More Priv.
ileges Than Other Nations When
the Waterway Is Completed.
MUST
FREE AND OPEN TO ALL ALIKE, IN
TIMES OF PEACE OR WAR.
No FOrtihcations Can he Constructed,
According to the Treaty as NegO-
tiated-Text of Document.
Special to the indianapolis Journal.

Special to the Indianapolis Journal.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6.-Opposition to
the treaty between the United States and
Great Britain relative to the Nicaragua
canal developed in the Senate as soon as
its contents were known. The critics of
the new treaty declare that all 1t does is to
extend to the United States the gracious
PERMISSION of Great Britain to build and
maintain the canal at its own expense or
to confer that right its citizens. They
say that II this treaty is ratified the canal
would be American only in geographical
sense, because 1t would be constructed on
American soil with American money. They
insist that this is but another instance Of
an American negotiator being overreached
by an English diplomat. 1t is objected
that there was neither occasion nor rea-
son for this country asking the permission
of Great Britain to build the canal. They
resent the assumption, which, they say,
constitutes the basis of the treaty that
Great Britain had an equal right in the
canal with the United States. They
argue that so far as the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty is concerned 1t is and has long been
a dead letter so far as the isthmian canal
was originally affected by that convention
because the provisions relating to the
canal in that treaty were never carried
out and have long been impossible of full
fillment and that so far as the other pro-
visions of the treaty go they also have
long been a dead letter because Great
Britain deliberately violated them and still
continues to violate them, and that, there
fore. that treaty has long been dead. They
hold that the ghost of this dead treaty has
been conjured up by the British ambassa-
dor simply to enable his country to be-
come a party to transaction entirely
beyond its jurisdiction and one in which it
has nc right to a voice. These are the gem
eral objections to the new treaty heard at
the Senate end of the Capitol since the
text of the convention was made public.
The objectors to the new treaty say the
chief. If not the only. reason why the
United States should construct the
isthmian canal is that it may be in fact
as well as in name an American waterway,
practically continuation of our southern
coast line This idea, the objectors say, is
completely -negatived by the new treaty.
1t gives the United States, they say, no
more rights in the canal after 1T is built
than any other nation either in war or
peace. No one argues that this country
should have special privileges in the canal
in time of peace, but many say the privi-
lege Of using IL on equal terms is a privi-
lege extended by this country as matter
Of business policy and comfy between ma
tions and not right they can demand.
The provision forbidding the United States
from fortifying the approaches to the
canal and from maintaining a military
force at those points or along the line of
the canal ARE particularly obnoxious. The
privilege of maintaining small police
force along the line of the canal is laughed
at as contemplate. The outlook is that a
vigorous fight against ratification will be
| made. Thirty negative votes will defeat
ratification. while it will require fifty-nine
to ratify.