The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1901-10-11
ABROGATION OF CLAYTON-BUL-
WEIR TREATY.
NEUTRALITY IS GUARANTEED
Question Settled on Its Merits With
out Reference to Alaskan
Boundry Dispute.

The United States and Great Brit
ain have reached an agreement con
oerning the isthmian canal question,
and the new treaty will be presented
to the senate for it's ratification early
in the coming session. l am now able
to give the substance Of this treaty.
1t provides:
Ffrst-For abrogation of the Old
Clayton-Bulwer treaty in toto.
Second-For a neutral isthmian
canal in cas- n be constructed by
the United States, open in time Of
peace to the ships of all nations upon
equal terms.
Third-The neutrality is guaranteed
by the United States alone, and other
maritime powers are not invited to
participate in such guarantee. Great
Britain is inferentially one of the
guarantees, because she is a party to
this treaty.
Fourth-In case of war the United
States reserves the right to take such
steps for it's w protection as it may
deem proper.
1t will be seen that the new treaty
meets the principal objections which
were offered to the old Hay-Paunce-
fote convention and which led to it's
rejection by the senate.
While the principal of neutrality is
asserted, the United States alone
guarantees that neutrality, and no
European powers are invited to give
their assent to it.
1t was this feature more than any
other which led to the defeat Of the
former treaty. Many senators were
willing to join Great Britain in a guar
antee of the neutrality of the propos-
ed new water way, because England
already enjoyed certain treaty rights
upon the isthmus. But they were de-
cidedly unwilling to invite other Euro
pean nations to give their assent.
Those nations had no standing in
the case, and it was deemed most I'M
wise to invite them to participate in a
purely American affair with which
they had no direct concern.
By the terms of the new treaty, the
United States may, in time of war,
deal with the canal as it deems best
for it's own interests. 1t may close the
canal to the ships of it's enemies, and
could, if it were thought advisable
(Which no one believes it ever will
be-, fortify the channel or it's termini.
In the broad sense the isthmian
waterway is to be 'all-American."
The United States is to build it and
to have complete control of it, unham-
pered by onerous restrictions.
The government of Great Britain
has met this question in a liberal spir-
it. 1t has assumed that it was it's
duty to place no unnecessary obstacles
in the way of a work promising so
much of Importance and value to the
commercial world.
1t has proceeded upon the principle
t. at the canal is built for
not war, and that a guarantee of non
discrimination is, after all, the most
important. desideratum.
On this point the United States
and Great Britain were able to agree,
because the United States has never
sought the right to fix preferential
tolls in favor of American commerce.
Not ever the senators who defeated
the Hay-Pauncefote treaty contended
for that. They We're willing the canal
should be thrown open to commerce
on equal terms, realizing hat the
economic advantages must necessarily
accure principally to the United States
on account of the geographic situa-
ton.
The British statesmen who had to
deal with this problem quickly per-
ceived that any insistence upon an
internationally guaranteed neutrality
in time of war must surely come to
nothing, as it was a concession which
the people of the United States would
never assent to.
If England insisted upon that, the
chances we're the canal would be
built without reference to her treaty
rights in any way. By standing out
for. everything she would gain moth
ing and lose all.
Ambassador Choate will bring to
the United States a draft of the new
treaty, and President Roosevelt will
soon have it in his hands. The pres
ident will be able to discuss it in his