The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-02-08
THE SENATE AND THE HAY-PAUNCE-
FOTE TREATY.

VI
ate to the new treaty abrogating the Clay
ton ulwer treaty illustrates the growing
tendency in recent years TO oppose treaties
on factious or partisan grounds. This is
not a healthy nor a patriotic sign. In re-
quiring that treaties negotiated by the ex-
ecutive shall have the concurrence of the
Senate to their ratification, the trainers of
the Constitution could not have expected
that opposition to treaties would ever be
based on other than high grounds of public
the great treaties in the early history of
the government were discussed and dis
posed of by the Senate on grounds entirely
above the suspicion of factious or partisan
opposition. or the desire. of making political
capital against the administration in pow
er. In recent years this has not been the
case. The Hawaiian treaty of annexation
and the treaty of peace with Spain were
opposed on grounds which, ostensibly and
pretendedly patriotic, were really factious
and partisan, and party lines were clearly
discernible in the votes on their ratifica-
ton. The treaty of peace with Spain. one
of the most important the United States
has ever made, was held up in the Senate
more than a month, and finally ratified by
barely one vote more than the necessary
two-thirds. OF the twenty-seven senator's
who voted against 1t, all but two or three
were Democrats, and the previous debate
showed clearly enough that their opposi-
ton was mainly based on partisan grounds.
The foreshadowed opposition to the Hay
Pauncefote treaty may not be wholly of
the character above indicated, but it will
be mainly so. 1t will be charged that the
administration is surrendering American
rights. that 1t Is giving away something
for nothing. that there is secret alliance
or understanding with England. etc. The
anti-administration jingoists. statesmen
who are war men in peace and peace men
in war, will embrace the opportunity to
twist the lions tail and try to fire the
lieve that the new treaty is not only un-
necessary, but that 1t is gratuitous sur
render of American rights. 1t is a sign of
decaying patriotism and craftsmanship
that such motives should govern the action
of the United States senator's, or even find
a place in that high body. but compara-
lively recent votes on other treaties show
that the condition exists.
There was some difference of opinion as
to the scope and effect of the Clayton-Bul-
as to its subsequent operation. but that it
has hindered and prevented the United
States from constructing and controlling a
transisthmian canal is a matter of record
and history. The fact that this government
has more than once tried and failed to Sc
cure its abrogation shows that its binding
force and hindering operation have been
recognized. The question now is, as it has
been for many years past, how to secure
for the United States a free hand to con-
struct and control the Nicaragua canal.
Treaties do not become invalid or obsolete
by mere lapse of time or change of condi-
tons, and unless the United States can
show, on good international grounds, that
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty has become
dead letter through its violation by Great
Britain. it is still of binding force. If that
is the case the question is, shall we ignore
and violate it, mourning the disgrace of
repudiating a treaty that is still in force,
and perhaps graver consequences, or shall
we come to friendly agreement with
England for its abrogation? The latter is
plainly the more honorable and the wiser
course The abrogaticn of the Clayton
Bulwer treaty would eliminate Great Brit
ain from the Nicaraguan canal question
and leave the United States free to con-
struct and control it on such terms as it
may choose to make with the Nicaraguan
government. The guarantee of its future
neutrality is the same as that which APP
plies to the Suez canal. of which our war
ships have recently made very advantage
Gus use. The Nicaraguan canal, when con-
structed, cannot be converted into a pri-
waite American waterway. 1t must be for
the use of the worlds commerce. In the
event of war the United States will have
no trouble in making good its claims re-
garding it, The first thing is to eliminate
Great Britain from the question and OBJ
tain for the United States an undisputed
right to construct and control the canal.
and to this end the repeal of the Clayton
Buiwer treaty is necessary. 1t is to be
hoped that political or factious opposition
in the Senate may not defeat this end