The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-03-26

| guard his interests In the enterprise
Well, that territorial prince the Khediv,
of Egypt, is now in effect a British vas.
sal. and all that he has is Britains We
need moi stop to discuss the difference
made by the change in sovereignty.
The third British objection is to the
elimination of Article III of the pro-
posed Hay-Pauncefote Treaty. as origi-
nally negotiated. 1t bound the high con-
tracing parties, soon as ratifications
should be exchanged. to notify the other
Powers and ask their adherence. II that
| adherence We're given. says Lord Lans-
dcwne, the neutrality of the canal would
be secured by the whole of the adherng
| Powers; without that adherence it would
depend only upon the guarantees of the
two contracting parties. And this state
| of things would be disadvGntageous to
| Great Britain, which then would alone
of all the family Of nations be deprived
of a free hand in the event of war. Our
only comment on the third objection is
that it is superhuous. The United States
is quite able to do without high contract
! ing parties, and TO leave Great Britain
as free as air to do what she may choose,
SO that she refrain from further agrees
sions in Central America, or elsewhere
| in regions which belong to or are under
the control, occupation, protection, or
within the sphere of paramount influence
of the United States.
Has Great Britain not enough trouble
on her hands that she should attempt the
impossible task of claiming this Republic
to her selfish and anti-American interests
in the defeat of the Nicaragua Canal
project? Do not Lord Salisbury and Lord
Lansdowne know that the Hay-Paunce-
fote Treaty, as amended In the Senate,
represents the extreme of concession to
which executive coercion. party disci-
pline, and the insidious influence of a
golden lobby can drive that body? If they
do not know this it is high time they were
informed. The Senate next winter will be
less inclined to consent to British or
European canal at our expense than it
was at the late session. 1t is ever proba-
bic that by that time public opinion.
which is steadily crystallizing on the sub
ject will be strong enough to compel Con-
gress to fatty denounce the Clayton-Bul-
wer Treaty as not only no longer bind
ing upon the United States, but as a
corpse long dead and buried. Then what
would happen? Would Great Britain be-
come bclligerent. with the idea that the
pine district in Alaska. without a blow
or a word, after the British had invaded
and seized it, would be permitted to make
another and more humiliating retreat?
Lord Salisbury possibly might be again
as he has been in the mat
ter of South Africa.
What will Mr.. Mckinley do in connec- |
ton with the reported activity of Mr.. |
Hay in preparing for another Hay |
Pauncefote Treaty designed to meet the |
views and desires of the British Govern |
ment? VIII he permit what he knows |
will be time and labor wasted? The APP
peal is to him. first. to put an end TO !
these efforts to fasten British ball and |
Chdlli uDpli Jul ltSS III ttllIdl AileTltd
without justification or excuse. VIII he |
in a recess of Congress to undo |
what the people, through their represent
atives. have done in Congress? There will
be a second appeal to the Senate in the
event that the first one should fail No
1ne need question what the Senate would
10 with a treaty more British than the
asst. Then there is the final appeal to
he American people. who by December
nay be very actively in evidence. Final
Y, as it seems to be conceded on all sides
hat Mr.. Hay is determined. for his own
in the eyes of his English
friends. to try TO force a more un-Ameri-
IAN measure than the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty on the country. 1t would be very
popular act on the part of the President
% take the matter entirely out of his
hands and allow it to drop Congress will
make short work of the British preten-
lions to dominate our course in regard to
he canal before January l, 1902. or we
ire much mistaken