The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-02-28
CLAYTON-RULwER TREATY.

a correspondent inquiries how long
the project of an isthmian canal has
been under consideration, when the
Clayton Bulwer treaty was made, what
are its provisions and what is its pres
ent status.
There was soma talk OF an inter-
oceanic waterway as early as 1925. Its
Importance was discussed and only the
poverty of the republic prevented ag-
gressive action at that early day. In
1885 President Jackson investigated the
feasibility Of the project. The follow
ing year the treaty was made with
New Granada, in which that govati.-
ment guaranteed the right of way OF
transit across the isthmus of Panama
upon any modes Of communication that
now exist or that may be hereafter
constructed"
On the 18th Of April, 1850, the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty was signed, binding
the United States and Great Britain
to recognize the rights of each other
as set forth in that famous document.
1t was a diplomatic deal in which the
representative of this government got
the worst Of tho worse, however,
than the New York Sun admits that
Secretary Hay got IN his agreement
with PaUncefote. The London Daily
News recently commented as follows
upon this matter: The Clayton-Bul-
wer treaty is singular document,
signed by a weak American admins
tration in peculiar circumstances, and
for Lord Salisbury to insist upon its
unconditional observance now would be
neither gracious nor wise"
This shows the popular interpreta-
ton Of the terms and advantages of the
two treaties on both sides Of the Allan
tic. In substance the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty provides:
l. Neither government will ever OBJ
tain or maintain for itself any exclusive
control over the said snip canal nor
erect OF maintain any Qualifications, "or
occupy, or fOTtify. or COlOniZe, or assume,
/ OF. exercise any dominion over Nicaragua
| Costa Rico, the Mosquito coast, or any
| part of Central America; nor make use OF
| any protection which either affords or
may afford, or any alliance which either
| has or may have tC or with any state or
people, which shall not be offered on the
! same terms TO the other"
.. Vessels Of both countries, in case Of
/ war between them, shall, while tTaVers-
/ ing the canal, or at such distance from
] The two ends thereof as may be hereafter
! esta blished. DO exempt from blockade,
detention or capture.
/ 3. Those constructing the canal under
/ the authority OF the local governments 10
I be protected in pt.sOn and property
{ 4. The contracting parties 10 use their
/ influence with local governments TO facIl-
I tate the construction OF the canal, ana
I also their good offices 10 procure the es-
{ adjustment Of two Iree ports.
/ j. When completed, the contracting par
! ties to guarantee the protection ana neu-
/ trality Of the canal, which may be Win
/ drawn by either party upon six months
/ notice provided the regulations concern
/ ing traffic are contrary TO the spirit ana
&. CONTRACTING parties to invite friendly
/ states Ito enter into stipularons with
i them similar TO those which they nave
/ entered into with each other. ana par
/ tcularly as TO the Central American
! {. Contracting parties to give support 20
! such reliable persons or company as may
J first offer 10 commence tne constr uttioil
! Of the canal priority OF claim 20 DetoHs 20
! any person or company having made
/ preparations therefor
/ 8. Both governments agree TO eAteIio
: their protection, by treaty stipulations, TO
/ any other practicable communications,
Z whether by canal or railway, across me
3 is.imus." and especially TO those Wnlch
( are now proposed TO be established Dy
President Buchanan made persist
ent efforts to have it abrOgated. He ap-
/ pealed to congress first and then tried
{ in every way to have it set aside by
mutual consent Of the contracting
powers But British persistence won
the day. When Lord Napier informed
/ this republic that his government
would consent to abrogate the treaty
/ only on condition that the status quo
of 1852 be restored, which would estab-
fish Great Britain's claim to British
/ Honduras. the Bay Islands and the
Mosquito coast, Buchanan desisted
from the attempt
In 1879 the United States senate de-
. clared by resolution that the least
move on the part Of any foreign power
I 20 begin the construction of canal
! across the isthmus could not be re-
garded in any other light than az the
I manifestation Of an unfriendly disposl-
ton towards the United States
Another resolution was introduced
into the house. which solemnly declared
that the construction Of an inter-
oceanic canal connecting the Atlantic
J and Pacific by foreign capital. under
! the auspices Of or through a charter
from any European government, is nos
tile to the established policy Of the
United States, is in violation OF the
spirit and declaration of the Monroe
doctrine and cannot be sanctioned OF
assented 10 by this government
Blaine undertook % strgighten out
the tangle during Garfie;d's administra7
! ton, but failed. English stuboorhness
refused to yield and lay like a dog IN
the naanger, refusing to consent to our
building a canal while unable 10 build
one itself The new treaty is said TO be
a reafirmation Of the old one. except
that it is couched IN more diplomatic
and evasiVe terms.
There was a cause for The Herald
being so angry with the Provo En-
D Tao - Han