The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-05-12
The Nicaragua Canal.

fairs yesterday published a strong edi-
torial on the subject of the Nicaragua
Canal In it, to begin with. the British
Government is recommended to ignore
the Senate's ill-manners and allow the
United States to construct the canal
under any financial and political con-
ditions she chooses. provided the canal
shall always be open TO British ship
ping on the same terms as American
shipping"
We need only pause for moment
to consider the 'ill-manners" of the
Senate to which the Spectator" refers
| They consisted in an indisposition To
ratify an un-American and outrageous
convention consented to in secrecy by
our Secretary of State. without con-
sulting the Foreign Affairs Committee
of either house of Congress. and ignor-
| ing the fact that the Senate of the
United States must act with the EXecu-
tive before any agreement with &c for
! eign Power can become binding. By
i way Of parenthesis we must admit that
| this constitutional rule recently has
been badly strained, if not broken, In
the practical cession to England. under
cover of a modus vivendi. of Amer
| lean territory in Alaska. Nevertheless
the rule exists, and concludes any for
eign State from finding fault if a treaty
| is signed by our Secretary of State,
only to be rejected by the Senate.
Barring the offensive opening of the
| Spectators argument, it is in 1T
self not without force. Great Britain's
interest, indeed, is to stop obstructing
the construction of the Nicaragua
Canal as an exclusively American en-
terprise under strictly American con-
troll. Soon or late the work will be
done by the United States and it would
be we'll for England to adjust herself
to that certainty. The suggestion of
the Spectator" that British interests
would be fully subserved by the open
ing of the waterway to British ship
ping on the same terms as American
shipping. if accepted and acted upon by
the Salisbury Ministry, would furnish
an easy solution of the canal ques-
ton as il affects the two Anglo-S Saxon
countries.
The spectator" contends that to
such proposition there are but two
alternatives: Either that Great Britain
prevent the canal from being built. or
that the Americans tear up the IClay-
ton Buiwerl Treaty and compel Great
Britain to suffer humiliation or fight.
The Spectator" says that it does not
for a moment believe that the British
people will sanction a war on the
question of abrogation of the treaty"
Certainly the British people would not
do so were they informed of the weak
and ridiculous position held by the Gov
eminent in relation TO that treaty. twas
entered into in good faith by the United
States, as an agreement referring solely
to a single proposed canal enterprise
which fell through. carrying with its
basis of its prosecution and accom-
plishment Or, if we concede the Brit
ish position that it was a permanent
convention, defining for all time the
duties and obligations of the two sigma
tories in the matter of any future in
ter-oceanic canal across Central Amer
lea, then it is plain that the treaty
was violated, nullified, and abrogated
by the treacherous act of Great Britain
in taking advantage of our preoccupa-
ton in the war between the States
and establishing the Crown Colony of
British Honduras in 1862, in plain de-
fance of the prohibition against the
acquisition of any territory in Central
America by either of the high contract
ing parties.
We are inclined to congratulate the
Spectator" upon its wise advice to the
British Government The latter will
be playing with edged tools as long
as it continues to exasperate this coun-
try by pressing its baseless contention
that the Clayton Bulwer Treaty is
alive. or has been since 1862. at the very
least. The Nicaragua Canal, when
completed. essentially will constitute a
part of our national coast line, and
hence must be subject to protection by
the United States in any way it may
deem necessary or proper. No one on
this side of the Atlantic desires to
make it otherwise than completely neu-
trail and open to the ships Of all nations
in time Of peace. But hitherto Great
Britain has insisted that we should also
maintain 1t as a free avenue for the
warships OF our enemies in time of war
"a proposition so affrontive that we
wonder any American Secretary of
State could be found to- tolerate it for
an instant. Mr.. Hay did. and the
British Government has stated that the
idea originated in the State Department
at Washington. This is one of the
things that cannot be discussed with
out heat. or in decorous language If
the statement be true, the fact is dis
credltable t. somebody, and his name
is neither Salisbury nor Pauncefote.
Unless the Senate next winter shall
prove less patriotic, with a slightly
changed personnel, than 1t was during |
the Fifty-sixth Congress, the two al
ternatives to a friendly and honest sur
render of the Clayton Bulwer conten- |
ton by Great Britain mentioned by the |
Spectator" will offer themselves. The
old treaty will be torn up and an Amer |
lean canal will be built, without the |
slightest reference to the wishes or |
menaces of any foreign Power whatso- |
ever. Then our beloved mother coun-
try may oscuiate or initiate as best
suits her views and convenience.
ChnnIe of Food In China.
Economists who have been studying