New-York tribune., 1901-05-26
POPULAR OBSERVATIONS.
CANAL ROUTES AND TREATIES"
A CONTENTION THAT THE DISCUSSION Of -.,r
NIcARAGUA QUESTION WAS BEGUN AT
THE WRONG END.

A CONTENTION THAT THE DISCUSSION OF THE
HIcARAGUA QUESTION WAS BEGUN AT
THE WRONG END.
To the Editor Of The Tribune
Sir: The axioms of international Ia " and NJ cor,-
sense enunciated in an editorial article of The
Tribcne. OF May %. Canal Poute. .na
Treaties" certainly substantta1lv ,rda,S,
Unfortunately. those principles and thar nroc.so
have not been followed in their logical rational
and practical order in the negotiations co,oer,,,
the Nicaragua Canal. the case in point What Is
worse. another and almost opposite course one
may say has been from the first persisted IN
Therefore, the article alluded to NAV perhans he
rsinterpreted and rnisapplied by a considerable
number of impulsive forgetfuI persons
Had the government of the United States-origt
ns,Iy, that is. at the beginning of the recent
negotations-diplomaticall approached the F,r,,,b
Government on the ground that the Clayton Bulwer
treaty had Jailed TO accomplish fits purpose'':
that il evidently never could accomplish IL. pur-
pose that the government OF the United States
stood ready TO construct and maintain Nicaragua
canal ana TO guarantee its neutrality; that there
fore this government desired an abroeation of the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty by mutual consent-had the
negotiations been begun and carried on in this
form and order, can any doubt that the British
Government would have consented? 1t has re-
peatedly intmated that II would have done So
Had it refused, then abrogaton without its consent
would perhaps have been excusable
An entirely different course has been pursued.
IN the first place treaty, excellent. broad and
judicious, retaining nearly all the useful features
of tie Clayton-Bulwer treaty and discardng its
absolute and impracticable ones, was drawn up
by the Secretary Of State and submitted TO the
Senate with the recommendation OF the President.
The Senate radically altered the treaty and more
over. added clause abruptly superseding the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty. The scarcely recognizable
document then TO the British Govern
rnent without excuses explanation. Naturally.
it has not been accepted. These are the circum-
stances. these the facts. the proceedings-to say
negotiations would be euphemism-which have
taken place. Moreover. in the mean while the
House. with almost riotous disorder and violence,
passed the Nicaragua Canal Bill-an act which If
ii had any conference amounted practically to re-
demands for territory upon Costa Rica and
ooi6iy recognized By the British government
still il could be nationally. TO speak, recognized
BY Great Britain To the great honor OF the
senate, he ii recorded that II did not even allow
vote the Nicaragua Canal Bill; ana there the
The whole subject of a Nicaraguan canal should
be considered from the point OF view OF the state
St stances-not mereiy from that of abstract prin
which should have been followed and observed. but
which were not. Let hope. however, that the
known to the general public; that negotiations
are TO he begun anew. in the regular ana formal
rient has consented to this in spite Of the dis
courteous manner in which it has mostly 9een eT so
haps likewise it may be never too late to
In Closing. / cannot refrain from mentioning one
mere point in this connection. II has been SAID py
petuai" Should he have said eternal? For
all treaties are perpetual which are NOT pay eNpaciuy
limited as 70 time. whose duration is lndennlIe::
Certainly no treaty is "eternaT; tnat Is WlthouS
begEnng or end But any Trea6g United @hGsy Sy m xed
time is of indefinite duration, and therefore per-
AS regards the plea that the circumstances are
different from those existing at the time az whieh I
most every treaty. old or even recent. coulo pe
scarcely one case would the circumstances. politi-
cal economic. social or other. be the same as
when the treaty was made. In this generation the
Trboie face of the world may almost be said. with
out exaggeration TO change from almost oay to
~ considerns the subject Of the Clayton Bulwer
treaty and Ncaraguan canal every boHd
distinctly remember. at the present tune, WhSh Tth
one fact: That the regular proper rauonai ano n
usual order of procedure has been compie.elS' w
y5aoessarilv reversed. In other WORDS, we nave
.put the cart before the horse" and yet we nave
expected the horse to pull the S cart 'HOui' VIC
eYeW-York. May g. 1901, CARROLL BRYCE.
I'VE are not quite as confident as our corre-
.pondent seems TO be that the British Govern
n1ent would have agreed to abrogation OF the
CLAYTON -Bulwer treaty on the conditions stated
We have a pretty vivid recollection that apout
1889 the United States Government asked Great
Britain to agree to abrogation OF the treaty Oh
the ground-hrst and chief-that the considera-
zion ~ the treaty had failed, its object had not
been accomplished and was not likely 10 De-
and the United States. therefore. had not re-
ceived that for which it covenanted; and that
The British Government replied with an EN-
phatic refusal TO abrogate the treaty declaring
that ii regarded the treaty as still "intrinsicahy
sound and applicable TO the present state OF
affairs" 1t would be pleasant TO know that the
British view of the matter had changed WITHIN
the last twenty years