The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1901-01-24
CAT OUT or THE BAG.
Plain Facts About the Nicara-
qua Canal.
REVEALED BY THE LONDON TRUTH

tntted states same Control rs Thnt
Possessed by Great Britain over
suez England Holds Power TO
Close That waterway.
We observe notable exodus OF cats
Just now from the Nicaragua canal
bag, says the New York Journal. 1t
will be remembered that when the
Hay-Pauncefote treaty was before the
senate we were told that the Davis
amendment was an intolerable innova-
ton, that its pretended parallelsm
with the Suez rules was n mere imperti-
nent sham and that England could nev-
er consent to such an invasion of her
rights. The London correspondent of
our neighbor, the New York Tribune,
was particularly emphatic in these as
sertions.
Now this same correspondent tells
us that England Is likely to accept all
the changes made by the senate. The
only trouble Is the Davis amendment.
This is the chief obstacle. because it
Is academic in form and vague in ap-
plication, yet on parallel lines with the
Suez convention. England by virtue of
political control at Cairo could close
the Suez canal against warships in an
emergency If Lord Cromer were in
structed to do so, and this policy might
be indicated by self defense If hostile
fleet We're on the way to India. The
foreign office might have stopped Ca
mara's fleet If the American govern
ment had suggested that course during
the war with Spain. No request was
made, and Admiral Camara went
through the canal and returned when
he found that the fleet could not reach
the Philippine Islands. But Lord Gro
mer might have prevented either pas
sage if he had been directed to do so.
The same powers reserved under the
Davis amendment for America in an
emergency will virtually be retained
by England over the Suez canal so long
as Egypt remains under her political
control.
So it seems that England exercises
over canal built by French compa-
ny on Turkish soil under an interna-
tional agreement all the privileges the
United States claims over a canal to be
built with its own money, by its own
agents, on the soil of an American re-
public
Mr.. Labouchere gives the English
people in Truth some plain facts on
this subject. He says that he was an
attache of the British legation at
Washington when the Clayton Bulwer
treaty was negotiated. 1.-THE treaty
was the outcome of the fussiness Of
Sir Henry Bulwer, who was then our
minister at Washington and who al
ways wanted to attract attention to
himself whenever he was in official
residence"
After recounting the futile attempts
to dig canal by private capital Mr.
Labouchere proceeds:
ut is therefore clear that unless
some state undertakes to pierce the
isthmus 1t never will be pierced If the
Americans like to undertake this use
full task we should not hinder them by
insisting on any right that we have to
meddle with them owing to the stipu-
latons of the Clayton Bulwer treaty.
The state making the canal should. pro-
vided that it can agree with the repub-
lie through whose territories it passes,
have full right to regulate the condi-
tions under which 1t may be used by
foreign countries. If it consents that
the vessels of countries with which it
is at peace may use it on the same
terms as its own vessels. so much the
better. But on this we have no right to
insist"
The clear headed editor of Truth
thinks it 'only reasonable that If the
United States takes the risks and
spends its money in piercing the 18TH
mus it should fortify its canal and pro-
hibt its use by the commercial marine
of any state with which it Is at war
and by the vessels of war of any states
engaged in hostilities with each other"
This he calls 1.-THE common sense view
of the matter"
That goes much farther than any
thing proposed by the senate. We do
not insist upon the privilege of closing
our canal to the merchant ships of
countries with which we are at war
nor to the war vessels of states engag-
ed in hostiltes with each other. We
claim merely the right to prevent the
use of work constructed at our ex-
pense for hostile operations against
ourselves.
Mr.. Labouchere calls attention to the
fact that England did her best to pre-
vent the construction of the Suez canal.
when it was made" he adds, I'VE
managed to lay hold of Egypt. which
gives us the absolute command of the
canal. Our record in regard to canals
piercing continents Is not clean. In the
event Of our being at war with France
does any one suppose that we should
not close the Suez canal to French CON-
merce and that If French vessel were
to reach Port Said we should regard
the canal as neutral passage in which
the vessel would be protected from
capture? Our real plea for being mas
ters of the canal Is that 1t Is the high
road between our possessions in Eu-
rope and Asia. and the Nicaragua canal
would be principally sea passage be-
tween the Atlantic and the Pacific pos
sessions of the United States"
Finally Mr.. Labouchere asserts the
principle that such an agreement as
the Clayton. Bulwer treaty Is subject to
abrogation at the will Of either party.
This breeze OF common sense ought
to blow little fresh air not only into