The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1901-03-13
ENGLAND,s ANSWER.

/
! is not materially different from what it
was expected it would be, though there
was report in circulation couple of
weeks or so ago that she would agree to
| them with some minor notifications. She
does not say that she will not consider
other propositions along the same line,
but she makes IT clear that for any con-
cessions she may make she will expect
compensation.
What will the next step of our govern
Gnent be? 1t is clear from what England
says that she regards the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty as binding as it was the day 1t
was made. That being the case, it cannot
be abrogated without her consent, except
by running the risk of disruption of our
friendly relations with her. 1t takes two
parties to make a treaty, and it takes
two to set 1T aside without disturbing the
friendly relations between the parties to
II. The Senate undertook to set aside the
Clayton-Bulwer treaty without consulting
England. Naturally England resented the
Senate's act, though her resentment is
not shown in her answer. 1t is evident
from the answer however, that If the
Hepburn Nicaragua bill had been passed,
and steps had been taken to construct the
canal in accordance with its provisions,
England would have taken offense. 1t
may be said that it would have been of
very little consequence to us if she had,
but as a matter of fact it would have
been great deal of consequence to us.
We might have had to engage in a war
with her that Would have cost twice as
much as the building of the canal, and
the building of the canal might have been
delayed great deal longer than it will
be under existing conditions.
The question which presents itself now
IS, What course will our government pur-
sue? Will it undertake to negotiate a new
treaty, having for its main object the
abrogation of the Clayton BuIwer treaty
and the right to fortify the Nicaragua
canal? 1t is probable that England would
engage in negotiations having these OBJ
Jects in view, but we should have to pay
pretty dearly for any concessions which
we might obtain. Indeed, it is doubtful
IL either the Senate or the American peo-
pie would agree to the terms which Eng
land would demand. In that event the
construction of the canal would be mt
off indefinitely.
May it not come to pass that those who
Killed the Hay-Pauncefote treaty will be
willing to admit that they made a mis-
take-that is, if they were really in favor
of the prompt construction OF the Mica
ragua canal? They must have known
that England would not agree TO the
amendments which they insisted upon
making to the Hay Pauncefote treaty. and
they must also have known that the Hep
burn. Nicaragua canal bill could not be
passed while the obstacles in the wav
Of building the canal, which the treaty re-
moved, remained.
And, after all, is it to our interest 70
have the right to fortify the canal?
Would it not be better all things consid-
cred, to have the canal neutralized as was
provided form the -Pauncefote treaty?
1t would, of course, be gratifying to our
pride to say that we not only owned the
canal but that we had the right to close
it to other nations when we felt that II
was for our interest to do so, but would
it not be practically impossible to protect
it against the attacks of an enemy?
Would it not take a large army to pro-
tect it throughout its entire length? 1t
must not be forgotten that one man with
a quantity of dynamite could, at a thou
sand points along the route, render IT i'm
passable. If it were not neutralzed it
would become a point of attack for an
enemy, and could easily be rendered use
less.
1t may turn out therefore that the con-
clusion will be reached that the Senate
in rejecting the Hay-Pauncefote treaty
or practically rejecting it by making
amendments to it which it was almost GER
tain England would not accept-inade
mistake. 1t certainly delayed the building
of the canal. Without intending 10 do so
1t Played into the hands of the great
trans-continental railroad combination.