The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-18
AMERICAS DUTY TO AMERICANS
The Very Positive Views of the Hon,
George +. Edmunds.
(From Harper's Weekly

I ratified with amendments. should have
States urgently need. and I hope strong
ly desire, is a canal across the Isthmus
| OF Nicaragua with its great and i'm
portant fresh-water lake so necessary TO
sea-going shipping. They need, and nat
| urally desire, that such canal shall be
| practically a coastwise route between
, our Atlantic and Pacific seaboards, and
| that 1t shall be a great factor in assist
! ing the development and promoting the
/ welfare of all the Central American
! States, and indeed all the States on the
east and west coasts of the continent.
! To achieve these objects it is essential
in the piesent eccaa5:t:Sa Of the world
: tnat the control of such canal should rest
with the United States and with the
States through which it passes. That
control should not be inconsistent with
the greatest practical freedom of uni
versal trade through it on equal terms to
all friendly countries.
1t appears to me to be clear that the
Clayton Bulwer Treaty, whatever it may
1850, does not now stand in the way of
the canal being built and operated by the
United States with the concurrence of the
Republic of Nicaragua and possibly of
Costa Rica. The Clayton Bulwer Treaty
had not been three years in existence be-
fore the parties to it radically differed as
to it's meaning in the important respects.
and in one respect it was, with the con-
currence of the President OF the United
States. made to mean an entirely different
thing to that which its language plainly
imported. All this from the note of the
British Minister in the exchange of ratif-
cations and the assent of our then Secre-
tary of State. Thus in effect attempting
to produce a different treaty to that which
the Senate had ratified.
This was, If course, entirely in contra
vention of the Constitution, and If prac-
ticed would leave the treaty making pow
er almost as completely in the hands of
the President of the United States alone
as it is in the hands of the Queen of Great
Britain.
Great Britain proceeded, in spite of the
treaty, to extend her power and increase
her possessions in Central America. A
great and chief object of the treaty was
to provide for the immediate construc-
tlon of the canal. and it was then ex-
pected that promoters and capitalists
who were entering into the scheme would
carry it out, but nothing was done and
time ran on until the Suez Canal was
completed in 1859 and the substantial and
really actual control Of it passed into
the hands of Great Britain in 1875. She
had. as diplomatic correspondence shows,
endeavored to prevent the construction
of the Suez Canal until stipulations
should be made securing its neutrality for
her benefit, and then, it having been built,
she Immediately became its chief owner
transfer OF almost majority of the
stock.
The United States ought not to COM
plain of this action on the part of Great
Britain in respect to the Suez Canal, for
her interests in the East are Sc enormous
and so much more extensive than those of
any other nation that it is indispensable
to her safety in both a commercial and
military sense that she should control |
that passage.
In view of the conduct of Great Britain |
and her contentious as to the meaning of
the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. Mr.. Freling-
huysen. about 1880. when Secretary of /
State to President Arthur distinctly set
forth in official correspondence on the |
subject the conclusion of the then Admin
istratiOn that the canal clauses of the |
Clayton Bulwer Treaty had become ex- |
tinct. Following this, in 1885, or 1884. |
President Arthur, without, l think. ask !
ing the assent of Fer Majestys Govern
ment, negotiated a treaty with the Re |
public OF Nicaragua. providing for the |
of the canal by the United /
States and its operation by the United |
States. and with just and liberal provision /
securing the rights of Nicaragua and
other Central and North and South Amer
lean States, and leaving the future to de-
termine. when occasion should arise how
far that canal should be neutral in time
of war, etc.
The treaty was sent to the Senate for
1t was thoroughly and ex-
haustively discussed from time to time
until January or February, 1885. The in
junction of secrecy having been taken off.
may say that there were very few Sena-
tors who claimed that the United States,
under existing conditions, were in any way
in taking action by the terms
Of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. There was,
however good reason to believe that had
4 vote been reached a very few months
earlier than it was. the treaty would have
been ratified by at least q three -fourths
majority.
About February, 1855, the question of
.atification came to vote, when it failed
If receiving the requisite two-thirds. al
hough a change of three or four votes
would have ratified it. There was still
eason to suppose that further considera-
ion would result in ratification The
,ote was accordingly reconsidered and
he subject left open for further action
" the Senate, but upon the Inauguration
# President Cleveland the treaty was
withdrawn by the President for further
consideration and was not again sent to |
he Senate.
During all this period of negotiation
nd discussion of the treaty there was
ot so far as / ever heard, any objection |
aised in respect to The honorable right |
f the United States to treat the Clayton
,ulwer Treaty as no longer of binding