The evening times., 1900-03-05
CIRCULATION STATEMENT.
MONDAY. MARCH 5, 1909.
Who Controls Our Foreign Policy

W hO Controls our Foreign PoiIcys
II Mr.. Mckinley is not helplessly in the
tells of whatever person or interest con-
trolls his foreign policy contrary to the uni
versal sentiment of the country, he will
hasten to throw of that control and join
with honest Americans in denouncing the
Infamous -Pauncefote Treaty with its
surrender of the Monroe Doctrine, its
abandonment of our position as the para
mount American power, and its accept
snce of what practically would amount to
British suzerainty over our own inter
oceanic canal He should take notice and
warning that his strongest and most in
ilueutial supporters among the Republican
papers are vigorously opposed to the
course of his Administration in this mat
ter. and that his chances for succeeding
himself. already slim enough. would dis
appear with ratification Of the Hay
Pauncefote Treaty.
The inherent viciousness of that agree
ment has been widely and fully explained
again and again. What is per-
haps not so well known is that
it is manifestly intended to place
this country in the power Of Great
Britain. whether ratified or not. 1t abro-
gates our treaty of 1861 with Nicaragua
That treaty. to which the New York Jour-
mai" calls particular attention today, pro-
vided for an American canal which we
could control and defend. If the Clayton
Bulwer Treaty had been alive at the time.
this one would have revoked il: but the
Clayton Bulwer Treaty was not alive. Ii
1850 England made a separate canal treaty
with Nicaragua, thereby treating the old
agreement as null and void. and emphaslz-
ed its attitude by establishing the colony
OF British Honduras two years later.
BY asking the British Government to
consent to a revision Of the Clayton
BUiwer Treaty, the Administration as
sumes that it has restored that iniquitous
thing to life and validity. This is under
stood to be the view also OF the British
Foreign Office, where the deal was eng-
neered. But il is an opinion from which
we dissent. Mr.. Mckinley and Mr.. Hay
do not constitute the treaty making power.
They can legally propose treaties ard
enter into tentative arrangements with
foreign states. They cannot bind the
Quilted States to accept anything in the
way OF a new treaty or the revision of q
old one, except by and with the consent Of
the Senate. So, the Senate would have
to take action, or else the status quo ante
would obtain. That. as we have shoIn.
was one in which the Clayton Bulwer
Treaty was vacated by England's Nicarag-
II
Central American territory in 1852 and by
our treaty with Nicaragua in 1867. Either
taken severally or Jointly, these move
ments left US entirely free and clear o,
any encumbrance in dealing with the canal
problem.
All these things being as well known to |
the President and his foreign minister as /
TO anyone else. why did they deliberately |
attempt to deprive this country of the ad- |
yantages of its diplomatic position. and TO |
surrender them. along with the Monroe |
Doctrine TO Great Britain. That they SO |
acted with full understanding and premes- |
itation does not seem 20 admit Of douh., |
and the mystery OF the case lies in the |
apparent lack of motive for the offence /
tion is secretly inimical to all favorable .
canal legislation, and has introduced thus |
humiliating and outrageous treaty to Kill /
of the last chance for a trans-isthmian |
in this Congress. The reasons /
for this strange course Of action are ZOO |
to talk about. We could un- /
deTstand how the whole force of the Re 1
marty might be a30lied IN bloca-
ing the Hepburn Morgan bill until after
The Presidential election. in order to bleed
ts opponents for the campaign fund: but
how it is possible for an American Pres:-
lent to demand alternative action. at the
hands of the Senate, against his own couG-
ry and people, is too hard question FOR
Is TO answer.