BoletiÌn mercantil de Puerto Rico. (San Juan, P.R.) 18??-1918, 1901-10-21
SAN JUAN, OCTOBER d
Editorial Comment.

kUltUl IQI SOI1lllA~uts
Public opinion both in the United States
and in Great Britain, On the Canal question
is much more placid that it was at the ex
piration of the last session of congress. The
Hay-Pauucefote treaty has been amended
by the Senate in three particulars, and while
these amendments did not seem Objectionable
to Great Britain in substance they were
Objectionable in form. The chief objection
was that one of these amendments blnntly
declared the Clayton Balwer treaty abrogat'
ed. There is good reason for thanking that
if q friendly negotiation in the usual course
of diplomacy had been initiated by the
Washingten government, having for iti
object the abrogation of the Bulwer. Clayton
treaty, and the substitution in its place Of
the more recent Hay Pauncefpte treaty, il
would have been conceded by the British
government. In our recent cables the atti-
tude of the British people in regard to the
canal project has been plainly put, and II
seems to be none other than general desire
to have canal, at all events, even If il
necessitated placing the canal under the
absolute control of the United States.
TIE London Times has actually been
carrying on campaign favoring the United
States control of the Canal. This spirit il
commendable, and there is no reason to
believe that this same spirit did not exist in
England at the time of the Hay Pauucetote
negotiation. But the method adopted by
the United States Senate in disposing of the
first treaty was too abrupt. The British
Ministery in view of the great continental
opposition that existed could d. nothing but
reject the treaty, amendments aud all.
The amt ndmen.s were three in NUMBER.
The first declared the Bulwer. Clayton treaty
superseded by the new treaty. The second
provided that none of the conditions Of
stipulations in certain sections designated
by their numbers should apply to measures
which the United States might fiud il
necessary to take for securing by it's OWL
forces the defense of the United and the
maintenance of order. The particular clause
which forbade the fortifcation Of the canal,
or the waters adjacent thereto, was not one
of the sections thus designated. In other
words, any measure achich the United
States might deem it necessary to take for
our defense must stop short Of the erection
of Notifications commanding the canal or the
entrances thereto.
The provisions OF the new treaty have
not been made public, but there have beer
outgivings through the London Times, and
the other English newspapers that have
followed the lead taken by that paper, that j
embraces in substance the Senate amend
ments to the former treaty. Indications
from the European cablegrsms are that it
will so tnrn out. At the sams tims it WOULD
not be fair to assume that England has
surrendered everything in the new arrange
ment, since she hes gained the main pOint
for which she contended in the former nego
tiatioD: that an earlier treaty should not be
set aside without previous consultation bet
ween the parties which had bound them
selves by it.
England's course in this negotiation has
been one Of good sense and sound judgment
and it is now for our home government tC
manifest the same spirit as that shown BY
Great Britain. The early opening of the
canal is Of far more importance to Tx
United States than it is to Great Britain
Ready communication and connection with
South America and the West Indies from
both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts is o.
much moment to the United States.
Congress in its relation to the colonies
should assume this duty at once, meet Great
Britain in the same spirit that it has come
forward, and accept Englands amendments
without tirlng debates. To the colonist the
final realization of the canal will be long
looked for aid, ard the course Of the amend
meuts progress in the Senate will be watch.
cd by the Latin American with never ceas.
ing yigilence.
The Senate owes its duty to the great
American republic, and to the smaller ones
of the southern hemisphere to pass this treaty
ct once. The man who is on the lookout at all
times for disagreemen;s with England, and
on any subject, be it what it may, must be
quashed. The treaty must not now fail be-
cause We licked England in '76 or in 1872,
and think we can do so again, or becauee
we think its case Of "quid pro quo" with
England. lift is, it is a prefectIiy legiti-
mate way Of doing business. Our own in
terests dictate That we should accept the
amendments made by Great Britain.
In addition to the public necessity, and
universal good, the new treaty will have the
prestige Of both the late President Nc Kinley
under whose eye the negotiation was con
Quoted, and Of President Roosevelt, who has
adopted it and made It the first essay Of
foreign policy in bis administration; that is
the first in point Of time. An additional
source Of strength may probably be found in
the support Of Senator Lodge, who next to
the late Senator Davis, was the most active
member in promoting the amendments 10
the former treaty. 1t may be assumed that
be viii be moved, both BY the feeling Of
Of thoae i6atiIfes of the treaty and
By bis friendship for the head Of the new
administration, to give his hearty support to
rs new negoliniion. Il Is needless 10 add
|kst Il ihe United etsies Senate should rei'