Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-03-10
AN ISTHMlAN CANAL
Committee Report on the Hay
Pauncefote Treaty.
TEE BULWER-CLAYf0N CONVENTION
Relations With England Reviewed
at Length.
MR.. MORGAN'S OBJECTIONS

The report submitted to the Senate yes
terday afternoon by the committee on for
eign relations in reference to the Hay
Pauncefote Nicaragua canal treaty, the i'm
port of which was briefly told in The Star
yesterday, is in the main review of the
general situation with reference to the
canal
There are about thirteen printed pages of
the report prepared by the subcommittee,
consisting of Senators Davis, Lodge and
Morgan. This report is largely a review
of the history of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.
Referring to the differences which have
arisen over the treaty this part of the re-
port says:
The only objections that have been
urged by the United States have not re-
lated to the treaty as a binding compact,
but to the conduct of Great Britain in
executing its terms and in refusing to
abandon certain islands and coast posses
sions which she claimed were not held after
the date of the treaty in violation of its
terms"
that under existing conditions the control
of the canal is not exclusive and add:
rms magic word has paralyzed the
eager desire of the two great powers to
control this canal for fifty years, and now
Its disappearance leaves us free to con-
struct the canal, excluding any right of
Great Britain to interfere"
The committee also conclude:
The present abrOgation of the Clayton
Bulwer treaty would not in the least re-
instate the rights of Honduras or Guate-
mala. as we allege they were in 1850.
Neither do those states ask our interview
ton in their affairs. But we have more
compulsory reason. one that involves our
due respect for the history of our own
country, for ceasing to bring into further
discussion the question of good faith on
the part of Great Rritaiu in
of the stipulations and the purposes of the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty."
This reason is found in the ratification
of the treaties of 1860, referring to which
the committee say:
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty Recognized.
Congress expressed no dissent to them,
Or to the Presidents declaration that the
dangerous questions arising from the Clay
ton and Bulwer treaty have been amicably
settled We cannot now assert to the con-
trary, and, for the purpose of abrogating
that treaty, We cannot insist that those
questions are not settled. 4" The con-
clusion is unavoidable that the government
of the United States acknowledged, in 1850
that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was an
obligatory convention and that it had been
fully and satisfactorily executed on the
part of Great Britain as to all questions
which up to that time had been contro-
Verted between the two governments.
Since 1860 the Clayton-Bulwer treaty has
been in some way recognized by the govern
ment in each of the succeeding administra-
tons as subsisting compact. Strong rea-
sons for its abrogation have been frequent
| ly stated, and some have always denied its
obligatory force. but no movement to ac-
compfish that result has been made, either
by Congress or the executive.
This treaty Is, therefore, open and ex-
listing as binding and uneXecuted COM
pact with the express approval of the
| United States to the question of our con-
troll over the canal and our right to build
and fortify it. 1t is executed and there
fore, unrepealable as to all other questions
and matters covered by its provisions. A
question of it's abrogation. raised at this
time. would only relate to the parts of the
treaty that remain to be executed
The Pending Treaty.
Coming to the pending treaty, the report
says:
No other nation except the United States
could have so great an interest in the ex-
elusive right to own and control an 18TH
milan canal, but In this matter, come what
may, we are compelled to assert the supe-
riority Of our right, now for the frse time
just. therefore, that the value of this con-
cession to US should be estimated a
great consideration for anything we may
yield. If we, indeed. yield anything. in ac
curing the exclusive right to control the
canal by modification of the Clayton
Bulwer treaty.
In the convention OF FeDruary D, 19OU,
Great Britain agrees that the restriction as
to the exclusive control of the canal i'm
posed by the Clayton-Bulwer treaty shall
continue to bind her. while the United
free to acquire from Costa Rica and Mica
ragua the exclusive control Of the canal
for the government or for our citizens I'M
der the protection Of the United States,
while 1t cuts off Great Britain from any
such right"
Speaking Of the restrictions in the treaty
the report says:
These grounds of objection to our exclu-
sive control of the canal are all removed by
this convention, except those that relate to
Notifications, which. being expressly re-
stated, are retained in a new or modified
form. If this convention is ratified Great
Britain could not negotiate with Costa
Rica or Nicaragua or any other American
state for any right to build, own, control,
manage, regulate or protect a canal to con-
meet the oceans, while the United States is
left free to enter upon and conclude such
negotiations. There Is nothing, therefore,
to the prejudice Of the United States in the
convention of February s. 1907
Strategic Importance.
Touching upon the strategic Importance
of the canal the report says:
I'VE stipulate against the blockade of
the canal by any nation. In conditions
that may not be entirely remote we would
find this provision. in letting our ships
through the canal free from capture by
our enemy, Of great security to our coast
wise trade. With our naval bases at Ma
Mia, Honolulu. San Francisco and San
Diego on one side and at San juan Porto
Rico. the Isle of Pines and Key West with
other fortified naval stations. on the other
side. 1t Is extremely improbable that a
fleet would cross either Of the great
oceans and approach the canal to find
gateway to the coasts Of the other ocean
If we are not able to handle an enemy I'M
der such disadvantages to them our power
of resistance to such a campaign would
be unworthy of our country, If it would
not be ludicrous.'
Prohibition of Fortihcations.