The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-12-15

canal in spite of the treaty engagement
to The contrary. We cannot possibly
stand by and allow the Clayto1- BuIwer
treaty to be thus imperiously set aside.
The good relations between the two
countries must of necessity be gravely
menaced. This is the outcome of Mr..
McKinley's reelection. Worse could
hardly have happened if Mr.. Bryan had
been elected.
Graphic Less Pessimistic.
The Daily Graphic remarks: 1--WE
have no doubt as 70 the result. Anglo
American craftsmanship viii find an
amicable solution of the difficulty Gre
ated by American jingoes. We fail to
see, however. how the Clayton Bulwer
treaty can be got rid of without the
Mosquito territory reverting to Great
Britain"
The Standard observes: 1T is more
Of a rebuff for President NcKinley's
executive than for Great Britain Eng
land cannot possibly accept the Hay
PaUEcefOte treaty thus amended. and
It would be insulting to the people and
government Of the United States to as
sumo that they would either denounce
the ClaytOn-Bulwer treaty without Of
fering an equitable equivalent, or con-
template the gross illegality of disre-
gaTding it.
There will be time enough to con-
slider the abrogation of the treaty when
Washington formally tenders a sugges-
ton, which would certainly be ap-
preached by Great Britain with every
desire to assist the United States TO
carry out a project highly beneficial to
American commerce, but it cannot be
supposed that we would abandon our
treaty rights without solid cOnsidera-
ton in return"
The Morning Post, after contending
that England in negOtiationg the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty vas acting virtually
as the representative OF al 1.-THE mari
time powers of the world, says:
Should the United States denOunce
the treaty there is no means known TO
International law of upholding il. The
only known method Of inducing a state
to accept an obligation of which 10 is
tired, is the method of cOmpulsiOn.
That method is out of the question
and would hardly be proposed, but it
Will be open to Great Britain alone, or
in conjunction with other maritime
states, to consider whether another
canal, not under the control of the
United States, may be worth making
In the matter British interests are
identical with the interests Of all the
maritime powers save the United
States"
Government Is Reticent.
In the house Of commons today the
>
member for South WOlVerhamptOn, to
draw out the government on the sub
ject Of the Nicaragua canal, failed,
Lord Cranborne. parliamentary secre-
tary for the foreign Office, contenting
himself with say4-g that no commune
cation had passed between Great Bril-
tain and the other European govern
ments with the view of eliciting Wheth-
er they would agree 10 regard as neu-
trail a canal occupied and fortified by
the United Staets.
No useful purpose, Lord Crsnborne
added, could be served at the present
moment by replying to the other para
graphs CT the question Of Mr.. Norman.
These asked if Nicaragua accepted the
United States senate's committee view
that the relationship of the United
States and Nicaragua was analogous TO
that of Turkey and Egypt at the time
of the construction of the SueZ canal,
namely, the. relations of suzerain and
vassal, and if the United States assO-
ciated itself with the protocol signed
at the London conference of March Is,
1871, to the effect that no power could
liberate itself from the engagements Of
treaty without the assent Of the con-
tracing parties.