The evening times., 1900-04-10
TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1900.
The Canal Situation.

Senator Morgan appears to be convinced
that he can force consideration of the Mica
ragua Canal bill at the present session OF
Congress, Notwithstanding orders of the
Administration to the contrary. and COM
pei Senators to place themselves on record
FOR or against the measure. AS Senator
Davis has intmated that no further at
tempt will be made to bring up the Hay
Pauncefote Treaty, Mr.. Morgan thinls
that there is a chance for action on the
Hepburn Morgan bill
A trained parliamentarian like the Sena-
tor from Alabama ought TO understand the
possibilities better than outsiders, and we
should be only too glad to share his hope
for legislation at this session. But it
seems to US that. if the Administration
has been able to block so comparatively
colorless matter as the Davis amendment
to the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty, it would
hardly fail CT success in preventing the
passage OF a measure which would clearly
wipe out everything the executive branch
of the Government attempted TO accom-
plish through the agreement between the
allied Anglo-American foreign offices. The
Hepburn Morgan bill, by implication at
least. reaffirms the Monroe Doctrine which
the Hay-Paunecfote Treaty surrenders.
The former lays the ghost of the Clayton
Bulwer Treaty, which the latter seeks to
reincarnate. The former is an American
measure pure and simple. The latter is an
undertaking almost entirely in the inter
est OF Europe. and principally in that OF
Great Britain. Perhaps Senator Morgan
is right in believing that opposition to the
American Canal viii be less potent than
opposition to a modification Of the British
scheme which would have made an Ameri-
can canal possible under treaty. but we
doubt it.
There is a report in circulation, to the
effect that the Administration has been
negotiating for a strip of land ten miles
wide, coinciding with the line OF the pro-
posed canal through Nicaragua and Costa
Rica and that il the Hay Pauncefote
Treaty had been ratified by the Senate in
the manner contemplated by the execu-
tive order to the Republican majority, the
matter would have been closed by this
time. We are not advised as to the truth
OF the statement; but, if true, il is rather
strange. Why should Mr.. Mckinley care
to acquire American sovereignty over the
territory to be occupied by the canal, il
protection and fortiication of such nation
al territory were prohibited by his treaty,
and perhaps his reserved engagements.
with Great Britain? The story does not
scan.
It's probable foundation no doubt Is the
fact that Admiral Walker, while on the
Isthmus, sounded the local governments on
the question Of their willingness that the
United States should acquire territory for
canal purposes and canal defence in the
states TO be trayersed by the waterway
and that he found them agreeable to such
a proposition. There is no reason why
they should not be. They would gain Sc
cUrity and stability for their institutions,
ard chance for peaceful development
under the wing Of a strong and non-ag-
gressive neighbor which they had never
before enjoyed. In fact for a long time
there has been little question that Nicara-
qua and Costa Rica would like nothing bet
ter than 10 make a cession. unimportant
in area, but which nevertheless, would
have all the effect of a buffer state be-
tween Them.
Whether any formal negotiations have
been entered upon or thought of by the Ad-
ministration or not. the subject matter is
important. An American canal should be
cut through American soil Our Isthmian
Heighbors are willing to give us the
ground; and Senator Davis asserts that the
British Government has 10 objection 10 our
treating the canal as a part of our coast
lire or TO our taking necessary measures
for its protection and defence. These two
considerations easily point TO a solution of
the whole problem. which would be salts
factory TO all parties concerned, the Ad-
miuistration and ether enemies Of a really
American water way alone excepted.