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

undertake all the obligations imposed by
! Article " Of the treaty, contain the only
| provisions not replaced by new provi-
| sions, covering the same ground, in the
| convention.
Under Article | of the Clayton-BulweT
! Treaty the two Powers agreed that neith-
| er would occupy, or fortify, or coionize,
or assume any dominion over any part
of Central America. nor attain any of the
! foregoing objects by protection afforded
to. or alliance with, any State or people
of Central America. There is no similar
agreement in the convention. If. there
fore, the treaty were wholly abrogated,
both Powers would, except in the vicinity
of the canal, recover entire freedom of
action in Central America. The change
would certainly be of advantage to the
United States, and might be of substan-
tial Importance.
PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE VI
Under the other surviving portion of
the treaty (part of Article VD provision
is made for treaties with the Central
American States in furtherance of the OBJ
ject of the two Powers. and for the eXer-
else of good offices should differences
arise as to the territory through which
the canal will pass. In this case abroga-
tion would perhaps signify but little to
this country. There is nothing in the
convention to prevent Great Britain from
entering into communication or exercis-
ing good offices with the Central Ameri-
can States. should difficulties hereafter
arise between them and the United
States
The other two amendments present
more formidable difficulties.
The first of them. which reserves to
the United States the right of taking any
measures which it may find necessary to
secure by its own forces the defence of
the United States. appears TO his Majes-
tvs Government to involve a distinct de-
parturc from the principle which has un-
til now found acceptance with both Gov
eruments; the principle. namely, that in
time of war as well as in time of peace
the passage of the canal is to remain
free and unimpeded and is to be so main
tained by the Power or Powers response
BILE for its control.
Were this amendment added to the
| convention the United States would, it
is presumed, he within their rights If
at any moment when it seemed to them
that their safety required it, in view of
warlike preparations not yet commenced.
but contemplated. or supposed TO be con-
templated, by another Power, they resort
ed TO warlikc acts in or near the canal
acts clearly inconsistent with the neutral
character which it has always been
sought to give it, an1 which would deny
the free use of it to the commerce and
navies of the world.
ANALOGY WITH THE sUEZ CANAL
1T appears from the report of the Sem
ate committee that the proposed addi-
tion to Article IA WAS adopted from Arti-
Gle X of the Suez Canal Convention,
which runs as follows:
.' Similarly, the provisions of Articles
". V. VII, and VIII shall not interfere
with the measures which his Majesty the
Sultan and his Highness the Khediye. in
the name OF his Imperial Majesty. and
within the limits of the firmans granted.
might find it necessary to take for Sc
curing by their own forces the defence of
Egypt and the maintenance of public or
der
a. In case his Imperial Majesty the Sui
tan, or his Highness the khediye should
find it necessary to avail themselves of
the exceptions for which this article pro-
vides. the signatory Powers of the De
claration of London shall be notified
thereof by the Imperial Ottoman Gov
ernment.
- 1t is likewise understood that the pro-
visions of the four articles aforesaid shall
in no case occasion any obstacle to the
measures which the imperial Ottoman
Government may think it necessary to
take in order TO ensure by its own forces
the defence of its other possessions sit
uated on the eastern coast of the Red
Sea
1T is. / understand, contended in sup
port of the Senate amendment that the
existence of the above provisions in the
sIez Canal Convention justi1ies the de-
mand now made for the insertion of anal
ogous provisions in regard to the proposed
Nicaragua Canal
But the analogy which it has been
attempted to set up fails in one essential
particular. The banks of the Suez Canal
are within the dominions of a territorial
sovereign. who was party to the conven-
tion, and whose established interests il
was necessary TO protect, whereas the
Nicaragua Canal will be constructed in
territory belonging not to the United
States, but to Central American States,
of whose sovereign rights other Powers
cannot claim to dispose.
"MoreoveS- it seems to have escaped at
teutson tha Article Y of the Suez Canal
Convention receives most important mod
ification from Article Al, which lays
down that the measures which shall be
taken in the cases provided for by Ard
cles TX and Y of the present treaty
shall not interfere with the free use OF
the canal The article proceeds to say
that: In the same cases. the erection of
permanent Notifications contrary TO the
provisions of Article VII is prohibited
OTHER ARTICLES SPECIFIED.
Article " guarantees that the mari
time canal shall remain open In time Of
war as a free passage even to The ships
of war of belliserents, and regulates the
revictualing, transit. and detention OF
such vessels in the canal.
Article regulates the embarkation
and Decentralization of troops. munitions
or materials of war by belligerent Pow
ers in time of war
Article VII prohibits the Powers from
keeping any vessel of war in the waters
of the canal.
Article VIII imposes on the agents of
tho signatory Powers in Egypt the duty