The times., 1901-03-26

guard his interests in the enterprise.
Wen, that territorial prince, the Khedive
of Egypt, is now in effect British vas
sal. and all that he has is Britain's We
need not stop to discuss the difference
made by the change in sovereignty
The third British objection is to the
elimination Of Article III of the pro-
posed Hay-Pauncefote Treaty as orlgi-
nally negotiated. 1t bound the high con
tracing parties, as soon as ratifcations
should be exchanged. to notify the other
| Powers and ask their adherence. II that
adherence were given, says Lord Lans-
dcwne, the neutrality of the canal would
be secured by the whole of the adhering
! Powers; without that adherence it would
depend only upon the guarantees of the
two contracting parties. And this state
! of things would be disadvsntageOus to
Great Britain, which then would alone
of all the family Of nations be deprived
Of free hand in the event of war. Our
only comment on the third objection is
that it is superIuous. The United States
is quite able TO do without high contract
! ing parties, and to leave Great Britain
as free as air to do what she may choose,
SO that she refrain from further agsres-
sions in Central America, or elsewhere
| in regions which belong to or are under
the control occupation. protection, or
within the sphere of paramount influence
| of the United States.
Has Great Britain not enough trouble
on her hands that she should attempt the
impossible task of claiming this Republic
to her selfish and anti-American interests
in the defeat of the Nicaragua Canal
project? Do not Lord Salisbury and Lord
Lansdowne know that the Hay-Paunce-
fote Treaty, as amended In the Senate,
represents the extreme of concession to
which executive coercion, party disci-
pline, and the insidious influence of a
golden lobby can drive that body? If they
do not know this it is high time they were
informed. The Senate next winter will be
less inclined to consent to a British a
European canal at our expense than it
was at the late session. 1t is even proba-
bic that by that time public opinion.
ject. will be strong enough to compel Con-
gress to fatty denounce the Clayton Bull |
wer Treaty as not only no longer bind !
ing upon the United States, but as a |
corpse long dead and buried. Then what |
would happen? Would Great Britain be- |
come belligerent. with the idea that the !
same people who surrendered the Porcu- |
pine district in Alaska, without a blow |
or a word. after the British had invaded !
and seized it, would be permitted to make
another and more humiliating retreat? |
Lord Salisbury possibly might be again
as he has been in the mat
ter of South Africa
What viii Mr.. Mckinley do in connec-
ton with the reported activity of Mr..
Hay in preparing for another Hay
Pauncefote Treaty designed to meet the
views and desires Of the British Govern
ment? VIII he permit what he knows
will be time and labor wasted? The APP
peal is to him. first, to put an end to
these efforts to fasten a British bail and
chain upon our legs in Central America
without JGSllucdlion or excuse. " Ill ne
attempt in a recess of Congress to undo
what the people, through their represent
atives, have done in Congress? There will
be a second appeal to the Senate in the
event that the first one should fail No
1ne need question what the Senate would
10 with a treaty more British than the
ast. Then there is the final appeal to
he American people, who by December
nay be very actively in evidence. Final
Y, as it seems to be conceded on all sides
hat Mr.. Hay is determined. for his own
in the eyes of his English
friends, to try TO force a more un-Ameri-
AN measure than the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty on the country il would be very
popular act on the part of the President
TO take the matter entirely ont of his
hands and allow it TO drop. Congress will
make short work of the British preten-
sions TO dominate our course in regard to
he canal before January l. 1902. or we !
are much mistaken.