New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-02-11
treaty a recognition OF the Monroe Doctrine and
says 1t is a good treaty IN all RESPECTS
Tne cincinnati Commerctal-Tribune' adm
RenN annrnves the tras 7. -.

says ''it is a good treaty IN all respects"
The Cincinnati Commercial-Tribune- CAdnn
Rep) approves the treaty II saws:
II this canal should prove to be the benefit to the
land viii profit enormously II addition il win
not be forgotten that with the adTantase AMERICA
has geographically, and bearing In mind the Navy
n which the canal can be used to our country's
disadvantage in case of war
The Cincinnati Times-star'' Qnd) approves the
treaty especially the neutrality feature
The indianapolis News' Qndj approves the
treaty OF the neutrality provision IT saws:
The general rule laid down by the treaty Is right
The canal ought 70 be neutral and it ought not to
De Io I II Is proper that should pledge
ourselves in this formal and solemn way to main
tain its neutrality 80 - ~
The indianapolis Journal adm. Rep1 says the
treaty should be ratified on the ground that at last
Dy II Great Britain is eliminated from the situa-
ton and the control OF the IS put exclusively
in the hands Of the United Statess The neutrality
provision is proper
The Terre Haute Express Rep) pronounces
those ohnd or witess' who in the gain of
getting rid OF the old convention "a loss"
The Evansville Courier CDen) says:
This latest triumph Of the so-caIed ..n.v.. H.,
plon1acy mas confirmed England in rights which it
is doubtful II she had possessed before Il binds
Is IOt 20 toruIy the waterway. II creates alli-
aFce between this country and England in defence
OF the neutrality Of the canal
The Chicago Tribune" CRep) condemns the
and dangerous TO the welfare Of the country in
times Of war" The canal It says. should be built
for National rather than commercial uses"
The Chicago Times-H Herald" adm. Rep1 is
against the treaty. 1t favors the contention that
the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty is invalid It says in
effect Go ahead and build the canal and fortify
H. arguing that England, by its possessions near
each end, has practically fortified the suez The
following is from Thursdays issue:
As it stands, the Isthmus of Panama IS part Of
CeTenCeS of r fs
barrier protecting our Pacific Coast
voice in the destinies Of his hemisphere -s
II is the backbone OF the Monroe Doctrine
II this barrier is cut the United States will de-
England not fouf 9f f fb not by The Leave Of
IN virtue OF its dominance on this continent.
The Chicago Inter Ocean" Rep) favors the
treaty. and at first said fortidcations would be
dangerous as likely TO lead 10 the canals destruc-
ton in time Of war But after days bordering
the editor thinks that the provision to keep the
waterway open 70 battleships in time Of war "a
weak point"
The Chicago Record" Ind9 favors the treaty
It says:
The Record has contended that a neutral canal.
apart from any question Of treaty provisions,
would be Of more service 70 the United States in
capture or destruction BY an enemy-because it
would be always open 70 use by our vessels,
over. our neighbors il this hemisphere are likely
20 regard US WIN less Suspicion II we 40 not INSIST
on MAKING military fortress oot OF ne water
The St Louis Globe-Democrat' adm. Rep)
favors the treaty without discussing the neutrality
feature. The St. Louis Republic DEM says
the treaty is against the interests OF this country
and for those Of Europe
The Detroit JournaT' Rep favors the treaty,
and says the canal can be defended from Puerto
Rico The Milwaukee Sentinel CRep) regards
II as diplomatic triumph, and says nothing about
the neutrality clause The Milwaukee Evening
Wisconsin" CRep) takes similar view. and thinks
that the waterway would increase the effective
ness Of our present Navy.
The St Paul Pioneer Press" adm Rep) says:
The diplomatic effects Of the NATURALIZATION prof.
ect all point TO II as undesirable For under mat
undoubtedly stream through its gateways, would
blockade or because of actual damage the water
way. II would thus become the cause OF certain
friction and afford multitude Ct opportunities for
pressing claims or exacting concesslonsI r many
Lhe az OF rasr,zs ION 8r two good ~easons
First. because England would never consent 70 IL
against it An Isthnian canal in the eyes Of Eu-
.ole = 10 1S he IiI9eI13 "a insg+ tba+ II be neII-
trazed. Probably it could be uationali2ed in spite
Of Europes protests without any real danger CT
war II the game were worth The candle and i
ton is much more tenable. Intrenehed as she IS
tralization is not agreeable 10 the Senate
The Minneapolis Journal CRep) thinks the
treaty an advantage. but says nothing Of neu-
traIity THE Minneapolis Times" Qnd) does not
like the treaty and calls II Instantaneous 10 Inls
country
THE Kansas City Star Gnd) and THE Ne
braska State Journal" CRepD merely summarize
the provisions, apparently with favor.
The Memphis Scinitar' CRep) says the treaty
should be ratified but thinks the possession Of the
Danish Islands and permanent control Of Cuba are
necessary 70 dominate he Mediterranean approach
10 the canal The New-Orleans Transformers"
Den9 declares for the treaty without referring to
the neutrality provision.
D. md -1A
/ gouery CA-aD Advertiser DEM both express
satisfaction with the treaty.
RIVAL CANAL INTERESTS.
CONFLICTING CLAIMS NAY EMBARRAss