The Washington weekly post., 1900-12-04
Abrogate the Treaty.

In hts references to the matter Of the
proposed isthmian canal the President
commends TO the consideration Of Con-
gress "the CONVENTION with Great Britain
to facilitate the construction of such a
canal and to remove any objection which
might arise out Of the convention common
ly called the Clayton Bulwer treaty" 1t
should be explained, In passing. that the
convention first referred to Is commonly
VIII serve to still further clear the situ-
alton If we add that the latter compact
has for its chief object the re-establish-
ment Of the former.
To state the case In plain terms, Eng
land. having long ago violated the Clay
ion-Bulwer treaty, and having been for
mally notified by Mr.. Frelinghuysen, in
1852, that the United States no longer con-
s.1ered it as binding, now seeks TO recover
the warrant for pernicious interference in
American affairs surreptitiously procured
in 1879 We do not seek to cover or con-
done the part played by Secretary Clayton
in this regard. His was an act of weak
ness, If not treachery. The treaty, as It
was ratified by the Senate, is not the
treaty which England now insists upon.
Its vital principle, the real essence Of its
mischief, was clandestinely inserted by Sec
retary Clayton at the instance Of the Brit
ish envoy, and never had the sanction of
the treaty making power. The instrument
is illegal, and the most distinguished Senate
Committee on Foreign Affairs ever assem-
1879. The Hay-Pauncefote treaty has no
function save that OF resuscitating and
rehabilitating the diseredited and violated
compact Of fifty years ago and strength
ening England in her sinister and insolent
designs What England wants is a pre-
text upon which she may claim right to
intervene and to assert an influence in
our plans regarding the proposed canal.
This pretext will be furnished should the
Senate ratify the Hay-Pauncefote treaty,
and from such ratification will inevitably
flow a torrent OF peril and humiliation
for the United States.
If this country needs England's assent
10 our construction and maintenance of
the isthmian canal-as il does nOt--and If
the denounced and repudiated Clayton
Bulwer treaty represents that need. why
take the roundabout instead of the direct
and self-respecting way? Why sanction
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, thereby as
suming new burdens and ushering In q
blight Of complications, when the desired
end can be achieved by the simple safe,
and honorable expedient of abrogating the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty outright? 1t is
suggested that England may take offense.
What of it? England takes offense at ev-
erything which excludes her from domina-
tion in profitable enterprise. England
has resented for hundred years the mag
nihcent expansion and prosperity of the
United States. and during our civil war
she spared no effort to destroy the repub-
lie erected upon the ruins of her tyranny
and avarice. Are we to mortgage our ma
tiOnal integrity, insert into the country's
veins the poison of this foreign partner
ship. establish permanent and inde-
structible basis for English interference In
our domestic affairs? We can construct
this canal without England's permission.
II would be of infinite value to us, con-
structed in that way. But if we are too
timid; if We be too enmeshed in the abhor-
rent tolls; too hopelessly emasculated by
this new, revolving Anglomania, then, in
heavens name, let US cancel it utterly
from our national scheme and so retain al
least the appearance of manhood and
virllity.
If we want the canal. why not have it?
II We be afraid of foreign disapprovaI, we
90 not deserve it. But, in any event let
us avoid as we would avoid a trap for
our destruction this proposed admission
Of England into the councils that direct
our national plans and destinies. The day
upon which England, with her new part
ner in piratical ambition-we refer 10
Germany-obtains the right of interfer-
ence in American affairs will mark the
beginning of our downfall as a free re-
public.