New-York tribune., 1901-05-08
rBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TR1BuxE.I

tBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE
Washington, May There can be no doubt
that the principle OF neutrality is much more
popular now than it was when the canal question
was before the Senate last winter. Improbable
as it sounds it is nevertheless a fact that II Is
just beginning to be broadly appreciated by
Senators in general that the principle Of neu-
trality in the control of an isthmian waterway
has been the fixed policy OF this government
ever since that question became one of national
interest and legislative concern BY treaty
more than fifty years old the neutrality of all
transportation facilities across the Isthmus OF
Panama is guaranteed by the United States,
and this fact was brought forcibIy to the atten-
ton of the world in a sharp note written by
Mr. Blaine soon after he became Secretary Of
State in President Garheld's Cabinet in 1881
At that time it seemed not unlikely that the
French Panama Canal enterprise would be
cessfully prosecuted. and Mr.. BIaine's note.
therefore. was peculiarly timely and forcIble. He
enunciated in this paper the doctrine that the
coast line of the United States substantially ex-
tended along the whole length of the isthmus.
and that "an agreement between the European
States to jointly guarantee the neutrality and
in effect control the political character Of a
| highway Of commerce remote from them and
near TO US would be viewed by this government
with the gravest concern"
All the literature the subject OF inter
oceanic canal except that of very recent date
abounds in reference to this traditional policy
| of the United States and it is thought that
closer study of this literature since Congress
| adjourned and more careful investigation gen.
| orally have inclined many Senators to the neu-
| trality principle who heretofore have been
strongest in their demands for "an American
canal strictly under American control" This it
can be said on trustworthy authority is hav-
/ ing great weight at present in favor Of the
Panama route. opposed to the Nicaragua
route. BY treaty obligations deliberately
sumed by the United States in 1916 the
trality of the Panama route was guaranteed.
and of this important fact the French Govern
ment was fully aware when the De Lesseps
enterprise was projected. The promoters Of the
Nicaragua Canal also were aware of the menace
of the Ciayton-Bulwer Treaty when they first
took hold of that scheme and when the matter
came before Congress every member Of both
houses knew that the Clayton -BuIwer conven-
ton stood in the way of American control
| While In his recent note on the subject Lord
Salisbury intimated plainly that the threats
made in Congress to ignore the treaty were an
affront to Great Britain. at the time he
| intimared that the British Government would
yield materially this point if approached in
the proper spirit II is considered likely that in
ms recent talks with Lord Pauncefote Mr.. Hay
/ particularly discussed this phase of the ques-
/ tion and that by a free exchange OF views both
/ the British Ambassador and the American Sec
retary Of State have reached a tentative agree
ment what is necessary for this govern
ment 10 do in order 10 induce the British Gov
eminent 10 waive whatever privileges IL may
1 think it possesses under the Clayton -BulWer
/ Treaty. Obviously, negCtia tiOns along this line
have led to the run1or in London that neutrality
/ has been agreed upon.
/ But even if the Senate should assent to a
treaty with Great Britain this basis ii is ex-
/ tremely doubtful that the next Congress would
enact Nicaragua Canal legislation in accord with
the spirit Of a treaty thus negotiated. Only
/ few days ago Mr.. Hepburn of Iowa, author OF
the bill which passed the House last spring by
an overwhelming majority, declared while on
visit TO Washington that he would never agree
10 any Nicaragua Canal legislation which gave
! recognition in any form British claims pre-
tensions under the Clayton -BUlwer Treaty. II is
more than probable that in this contention Mr..
/ Hepburn could carry the House with him. Thus.
| II the Senate should ratify a new treaty made
! by Secretary Hay and Lord PauncefOte which
contained the least recognition Of Great Brtatns
right In the premises, all legislation on the sub
/ ject Of the Nicaragua Canal to be constructed
in accordance with the terms of the treaty would
be blocked IN the House.
/ In this view Of the case. the proposition for
/ this government to take over the French Pana
! ma Canal enterprise and complete IL is growing
/ in popularity in WASHINGTON. This does not nee
essarily mean that NJ. Hutin's offer will be
! cepted just as he has made II. II does mean,
however. that because Of the assured neutrality
/ of the Panama route that enterprise. IL de-
| clared feasible by competent American engi-
neers, commends itself more strongly to-day to
/ the real friends of canal legislation in Wash
ington than il ever did before.