The age-herald., 1900-02-11
SOME OPPOSITION
 TO CANAL TREATY It is Believed That the Agreement Will
 be Ratified. THE PRESIDENT DETERMINED Opponents of the Treaty Are Very
 TalkatiVe. OBJECTION IS TO NEUTRALITY The Hay-Pauncetote Agreement Has Not Been Well Received by News papers. But Rejection is
 Still Not Looked For
OBJECTION IS TO NEUTRALITY

Washington, February 10.-(Special)- Either the opponents of the HayPauncefote treaty, which makes the proposed Nicara- guam canal neutral are more talkative than heretofore or the treaty is more unpopular than had been supposed. It would seem as If both were the case. Yet there does not appear to be any reason to apprehend that the treaty will not be ratified. The president is as firm and determined in its support as ever.
 The treaty has not been as well received by the newspapers as expected, and two strong Washington papers are opposing its ratification. Nevertheless it does not seem as if all this should cause the treaty ito be rejected by the senate, even though 1t is never easy to secure q two thirds vote in the senate on any proposition.
 One great trouble is that people forget that in 1850 when we were not rich enough to construct an inter-oceanic ship canal, we asked Great Britain to help us out and join in its construction. We were very willing then that the rich United Kingdom should come to our aid, but now that we are rich enough to build the canal ourselves we find a lot of people who howl because we propose to make the canal neutral and insist that it is un-American to do so They say we should build the canal and abso- lutey control it. We should defy all the maritime world and insist, notwithstand- ing the precedent established by Great Britain with the Suez canal upon our right to close the waterway, which after Its con struction will be of inestimable importance to the worlds commerce, in the event of war
 Want to MeddIe With Boer War
 These very people who are crying out loudly because the president and such strong democrats as Morgan, of Alabamu, would have the canal neutral, want the United States to meddle with the Boer war. They seem to think that we can do any thing we choose with other nations, inter- fere with their business when ever we want to, but no one must say a word to the United States. for our government is ln- fallible. If we are to play the game Of in- ternational politics we must play 1t ac- cord.ng to the rules. Again, to prevent a foreign fleet from using the canal in war time would require, even if the entrances were fortified, warships at each end, talk ing them away from offensive or defensive operations, else where. As military ques- ton it is regarded by experts as very doubtful if the United States, no matter how great its navy might be, could defend that canal safely or prevent its being so ln- jured by a hostile fleet as to make 1t use- less when most needed. The opponents or the treaty also forget that by refusing to make the canal neutral we would incur the hostility of other nations and menace our own safety. It is all well enough to want to be '.splendidly isolated as Great Brit ain is, but it is not good international poi- tics to cultivate enmities.
 In connection with the canal question as affected by the treaty, it is interesting fn ltnx tfh haf a MT. Frye, of Maine, president Of the sen ate, is of the opinion that the United States under the Haye-Paun uncefote agree ment would have the right to permit Amer jean vessels engaged in the coastwise trade to go through the canal without charge, 1T that be desirable, or on payment of tolls lower than those charged American vessels not in the coastwise trade, or ships or any other nations that used the waterway.
 The strongest argument in flavor of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty is that 1t makes the canal absolutely neutral and will be followed by an agreement wpdh other na- ticns to the same effect. This will be the strongest assurance of the safety of the canal in any circumstances.
 A Secret Agreement
 An attempt is being made to have it ap- pear that the yPauncefote treaty Is certain indication of a secret agreement with Great Britain. It develops, too, that in this connection several democrats Wno are opposed to Bryan's renomination are urging that Richard Olney, secretary of state under MT. Cleveland, should be made a candidate for the presidency on the ground that by his stand on the Venezuelan question he showed his unwillingness to buckle down to Great Britain. Mir. Olney is an exceptionally strong man, but even If Mir. Gresham had lived and continued secretary of state tine Venezuelan business would have occurred as it did, for poor Gresham, when he was being abused for not maintaining an aggressive American policy, was preparing the way to demand of Great Britain settlement of the Vene- zuelan boundary dispute, and shortly be- fore his death he said to the writer in tine dining room of the Arlington hotel: "You fellows are abusing me because am not maintaining an aggressive ~Amef'ican policy Just wait until we get to the Venezuela business, and I'll show you whether I am not an American and capable of ar ag- gIessve stand.".
 As presidential possibility in the den- ocratic national convention of this year Richard Olney would stand just about as much show as a eat without claws in a dog fight.