Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1900-02-19
The Canal Treaty.

little IN Ine way OF independence Will
regard to the waterway, have been fully
investigated. The United States is
anxious to secure the construction of
the canal to make a short route for
between the two coasts of
the continent and to give the eastern
coast a direct route to the Asiatic pos
sessions of this country. 1t is also very
necessary to shorten the distances be-
tween the different American ports for
naval vessels. England may or may not
have forfeited the rights she had under
the old Clayton-Bulwer treaty, in which
this country and England agreed that
a. canal should be neutral, open at all
times for the passage of the vessels of
all countries upon the payment of tolls,
and never to be closed to war-ships,
though none may within the canal carry
on war, nor procure war supplies. The
new treaty is but little more than a re-
newal of the old. 1t provides that the
protect the property, but not erect for
tifications to menace ships of other
countries. The Suez canal is neutral in
the way proposed for that of Nicaragua.
The time has W been when CON-
struction Of the CANAL might not have
been prevented by either the United
States or England protesting or in
triguing with Nicaragua, and insisting
that prior rights to the privilege exist
ed in favor of one country OF the other.
England has waived all rights provided
the canal be neutral, and becomes a
party to a demand that European ma
tions shall observe such neutrality as
to the canal. The United States cannot
consider a waterway through two re-
publics as strictly American as a river
in the interior of this country. While
the treaty authorizes the United States
to acquire territory through which the
canal will cross Nicaragua and Costa
Rica, those countries, under their con-
stitution, cannot ALLEVIATE land in favor
Of a foreign government. They may
give permission for the canal to cross,
or perhaps makes long lease. But to do
lions to be changed, OF ignored. In this
and minor respects the treaty may have
to be amended. But to reject the treaty
and attempt to cur privileges and
construct the canal in defiance of Eng
land would probably result in failure. 1t
would be easy to make the isthmian
governments believe that the United
States desired a free hand to fortify the
annex Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Even
the most inferior government objects
to a foreign nation having privileges in
a military way that puts the home ad-
ministration at the mercy of a greater
power at all times. The present spirit
of acquisition upon the part of this
country need only be pointed out by
British emissaries to arouse suspicion
in the isthmus, which might lead the
governments there to evade compliance
with the wishes of the Americans, es-
pecially should the local governments
have the moral support of England.
There would appear to be but n
course by which to secure early con-
struction of the canal-make the most
liberal deal that can be arranged with
Great Britain. The cry is always raised
in this country when any matter is ar
ranged with Great Britain that the for
eign diplomats have secured advan-
tages in excess of those obtained by
the United States, but time sometimes
disproves the truth of the assertion. A
nation, like an individual, sometimes
loses all by demanding everything and
conceding nothing. No n government
can be "the whole thing" Great Brit
ain has sometimes essayed to he, and in
the long run lost at n point by stick
ing for others. Secretary Hay has not
in other matters proved too timid, nor
yielding, and in this case has probably
accomplished the most that could be,
under all the circumstances. 1t should
be borne in mind that many individuals
1ilu companies VI llpCCl SolCo al Ad Nlll6
the Nicaraguan canal project defeated.
A New York company is trying to pro-
mote the choice of the Panama route,
and this may eco urtonf eddn9cmfw
and this may account for some of the
vigorous editorials in New York papers
against the Hay-Pauncefote treaty. But
there are many other papers which at
tack the treaty simply because it Is an
administration measure. These hunt
for arguments to secure the defeat of
any proposition that emanates from the
administration, regardless of it's merits
and the interests of the public. And
there are politicians who are prejudiced
or who pander to popular prejudice by
opposing any dealings with Great Brit
ain