The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-03-10

ment. remarking as follows: Irrespective
Of the foregoing considerations we are
clearly OF the opinion that IL Article
10 did not exist the true interests and
necessity Of the United States require upon
the highest considerations of prudence and
right the adoption OF the amendment pro-
posed"
THE OLD TREATY REVIEWED.
The above extracts cover the portion of
the report which was prepared after the
decision TO amend the treaty was reached.
There are about thirteen printed pages of
the report prepared by the subcommittee,
consisting of Senators Davis, Lodge and
Morgan. This report Is largely a review of
the history of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.
Referring TO the differences which have
arisen over the treaty. this part OF the re-
port says:
"The only objections that have been
urged by the United States have not re-
lated to the treaty as a binding compact.
but to the conduct of Great Britain in ex-
ecuting It's terms and in refusing TO aban-
don certain islands and coast possessions
which. she claimed. were not held after the
date OF the treaty. In violation of its
terms"
The committee calls attention TO the
fact that, under existing conditions. the
control of the canal is not exclusive and
adds: This magic word has paralyzec the
eager desire of the two great powers 10
control this canal for fifty years. and now
its disappearance leaves us free to con-
struct and control the canal, excluding any
right Of Great Britain to interfere"
The committee also concludes: The
present abrogation OF the Clayton-Buiwer
treaty would not in the least reinstare the
rights OF Honduras or Guatemala, as We
allege they were in 1850. Neither do these
states ask our Intervention in their af-
fairs. But we have a more compulsory rea-
son, one that involves our due respect for
the history of our own country, for ceasing
TO bring into further discussion the ques-
tions OF good faith on the part OF Great
Britain in the execution of stipulations
and the purposes of the ClaytOn-Bulwer
treaty"
This reason Is found in the ratification of
the treaty of 1850, referring to which. the
committee says: Congress expressed no
dissent to them, or to the Presidents dec
laration that The dangerous questions
arising from the Clayton ulwer treaty
have been amicably settled We cannot
now assert to the contrary and, for the
purpose OF abrogating the treaty. we can
not insist that those questions are not
settled. The conclusion is unavoid-
able that the government Of the United
States acknowledged, in 1860. that the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty was an obligatory con-
vention and that IL had been fully and sat-
isfactorily executed on the part of Great
Britain as TO all questions. which, up to
that time. had been controversial between
the two governments"
AsOlDED n dOSIlLE CLASH.
Referring to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.
the committee says it certainly avoided
hostile collision between these two great
powers. whatever may have been it's faults
as an entangling alliance. or national hui
initiation to US. or as the cause of pro-
tracted and heated diplomatic controversy.
Since 1860 the Clayton-Bulwer treaty has
been In some way recognized by the gov
eminent in each of the succeeding admins
trations as a subsisting compact. Strong
reasons Tor It's abrogation have been fire.
quently stated, and some have always de-
MED Its obligatory force, but no movement
10 accomplish that result has been made,
either by Congress or the executive.
This treaty is, therefore, open and exist
Ing as a binding and unexecuted compact
with the express approval of the United
states. as to the question of our control
over the canal and our right to build and
fortffy 1t. 1t Is executed. and. therefore,
unrepealable as to all other questions and
matters covered by its provisions. A ques-
ton of its abrogation, raised at this time,
would only relate TO the parts of the treaty
that remain to be executed. The identical
treaties OF Great Britain and the United
States with Nicaragua provide for the pro-
lection OF the canal and the companies OF
CONSTRUCTION by the governments. with the
use of military or civil Observation-Disclosures,
and they limit the profits of the conces-
sionary companies to Is per cent.
In other respects. the governmental SUI
pervfsion for the protection OF the cOnces-
~sionaries, whether British or American, Is
nearly supreme, and would soon become
absolute in the dealings of either of these
powers with the protection of their citizens
or subjects holding concessions from Mica
ragua. As matters stand, IL has all the
time since these identical treaties were
concluded been a race of diligence between
American and British con-cessionaries as tc
which of them should gain the control OF
the canal. One company being installed
would necessarily exclude any other.
FULL OF PERIL.
"The right to a footing in Nicaragua thu:
acquired by Great Britain is full OF peri
to this Republic and could only be disposed
Of by further agreement or by war, or by
uniting the interests of both government!
In the joint ownership and control of tn,
canal. Such an arrangement, while it II
still desired by some. would be a fata
mistake that wOuld soon involve the coun
tries In war. or IL would enlarge an,
solfdify the scheme of alliance that is EN-
bodied in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty int,
a practical alliance. offensive and defen
sive. in the control OF navigation and com
merce of the world. II is these latte
treaties that present the real ground of on
present difficulty, from which the conven
ton OF 1850 relieves u.s."
Coming to the pending treaty the repor
says: mo other nation except the Unite,
States could have so great an interest il
the exclusive right TO own and control al
isthmian canal, but in this matter, com
what may, We are compelled to assert tn
superiority Of our right, nov for the frs
time conceded by Great Britain. IL is wis
and just. therefore. that the value of thi
concession to us should be estimated as
great consideration for anything we ma,
yield, IL we. indeed, yield anything, il
acquiring the exclusive right to control tn
canal by a modification of the Clayton
Bulwer treaty.
.In the convention of Feb. 5. 1900, Grea
Britain agrees that the restriction as {
the exclusive control of the canal impose,
by the Clayton-Bulwer treaty shall con