The San Francisco call., 1901-11-20

\ the signing OF the new canal treaty by Secre-
- tary Hay and Lord Pauncefote state that while
the exact language of the treaty will not be made pub
c until after It's submission to the Senate yet there
IS every assurance that the summary given to the
press some days ago is essentially correct We have
therefore fairly comprehensive knowledge of the
terms OF the arrangement and there seems to be
to doubt they will be satisfactory to both
nations. Thus the long wrangle over the subject
seems to be ended at last and one OF the greatest OBJ
saces IN the way Of the construction of the canal
is about to be removed
The virtual effect Of the new treaty is to eliminate
Great Britain from the problem The old joint guar
antee arrangement devised in the CLAYTON Bulwer
treaty is set aside There is to be no longer any,
thing in the way of partnership between ourselves
and Great Britain in the control OF the canal We
are to have free hand in arranging for the construc
,tion OF the canal for its maintenance and defense and
for its neutrality
The terms are not cny satisfactory to u.s. but they
can hardly be less so to Great Britain One of the
objections made by British dplomatsts to the forti-
hcat1on OF the canal by the United States was that
as Great Britain partner to the guarantee of
neutrality her Government might be held responsible
by other powers for what the United States might
do in the matter Under the old treaty no one could
question the validity OF that objection The new
treaty sets it aside altogether Great Britain is to
have no more to do with the canal than Germany or
France, and her dplomatsts need have no more anx-
iety the subject
lhe British press generally appears to approve the
treaty. 1t IS true the London Chronicle complains
that the British Foreign Secretary Lord Lansdowne
has surrendered everything without compensation"
but the Chronicle IS naturally inclined to make
point against the Ministry whenever it can and more
tO
downe. Something be allowed for the pav OF
partisan politics. The other leading papers in Lon
don have heartily commended the terms OF the treaty
that have been made public. The Pail Mall Gazette
says: I'VE are surrendering right we would never
think seriously OF exercising but which might be in
irlnged at any moment to the grave detriment OF
British dignity That seems to be the prevailing
opinion in London and it is unquestonably well
founded. Whatever rights Great Britain NAV have
had in the proposed waterway have long since been
rendered obsolete by the changed conditions of the
world, and it is wisdom the part of her statesmen
to recognize the fact asd upon it instead OF waiting
until the recognition is forced upon them and what
row passes as concessions would appear surrender
The London Times says: 1t is premature to as
sume that all difficulties have been overcome and that
the Senate will ratiy the treaty" The warning NAV
be taken here we'll as in London The opponents
of the canal defeated the undertaking of the enter
prise last year by attacking the treaty which was then
submitted They are men of ingenuity and it is not
impossible that they will find some pretense upon
which to make an attack upon the new one Over
and over again prospects bright as those which now
appear before the great enterprise have been bghted
We may sure the fight s' not yet abandoned by the
great forces which have SO long bafaed the will of
the people. Even nothing but a rcsolute express
sion of public sentiment make sure of the begin
ming OF the work OF construction during the coming
year.