New-York tribune., 1901-11-14
MR.. DENNIS ON THE QUESTION OF GUAR
ANTEE AND AMERICAN CONTROL.


Canal Treaty Precedent" in The Tribune Of No.
vember L. The ingenious analogy which you seek
to draw between the guarantee by the United
States of the Panama Railway and the proposed
sole guarantee of the canal does not seem to
to be sound. either In fact logic. You say. speak
ing Of the Panama Railroad: Its neutrality is
guaranteed by the United States. and by the
United States alone. and this country has spechcai
ly and emphatcally refused to admit any other
power to participation In that guarantee" Now
let US about that. Until after the Civil War
the policy of the United States directed the
speedy construction of the canal, open equal
terms to the whole world in and peace. The
treaty of 1876 with New-Cranada forms excep-
ton to this principle. The treaty is entitled
Treaty of Peace. Amity. Navigation and Com
merce-" Only of its thrty-six articles refers
to the neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama. In
this article the United States in for certain
favors elsewhere granted. does guarantee the neu-
trality of the Isthnus of Panama. But there is
nothing said about the guarantee being exclusives;
there is nothing 70 prevent either party from
making similar treaties with other nations And
how could the neutrality of the ishmus the object
of the treaty, be better secured than by such ad-
dtional treaties? At any rate. this the opinion
in the United States at the time, for four years
later. in the Clayton Bulwer Treaty, find the
United States agreeing to share with England the
privilege of guaranteeing the neutrality of the
isthmus and the railroad. which you say
elusive. The famous eighth article of that treaty
reads:
The governments of the United States and Great
Britain, having only desired in entering into
but also to establish a general principle. they
hereby agree to extend their protection. by treaty
stipulatons. to any other practicable communica-
tions. whether by canal or railway. across the
and especiaiiy to the interoceanic comunica tons
should the same prove TO be prSGuGao %hfoh6e H %
established by way of Tehuantepec or Panama
BY the sixth article the contracting parties
gage to invite every other State to join them in
the guarantee. Seward is usually considered
good American. In his latter days he laid the
foundations for our present imperial" policy. He
knew how to apply the doctrine Of America for
the Americans" to the French Intervention in Mex
leo, even In the dark hours of the Civil War. Yet
In 1862 when the safety of the Panama Railroad
was endangered by revolution he called on Eng
land to do her part toward protecting its neu-
traIity. He writes: This government has no in
terest In the matter different from that OF other
maritime powers" II we have specifically and
emphatically refused TO admit any other power TO
participation in that guarantee" IL has been very
recently. and does not show that we have main
tained exclusive guarantee faithfully and enec-
lively for half century,
But suppose had. all alone. guaranteed the
neutrality OF the railroad for half century. what
does 1t show. except that the United States could
probably also guarantee tho canal from the same
sort of interruption which the railroad has been
subject-the petty wars and revolutions Of South
American No one doubts this. But this Is long
way from saying that the same treatment would
be equally efficacious when applied TO death
struggle. say between England and the Dual Alli-
ance when the control of the canal for few hours
might decide the result of the still longer
step must be taken before say that the
neutral guarantee OF any one power would be re-
spected by side II that was itself one
OF the bellgerents
During the earlier half OF this century
pira,ions were I have said. very different from
what they are now We only asked for neutral
canal. open TO all on the same terms. Resolutions
10 that effect passed by Congress unanimously
In 1885 Just think OF Congress passing any kind OF
resolutions about the canal unanimously now! Al
the time the Cla ytonr rBulwer Treaty the relative
strength Of England and the United States was
different from what It is now. England. with her
protectorate the Mosquito Indians. her hold
Greytown and the Bay Islands. would have
the exclusive control OF the canal Under these
circumstances the Clayton -Bulwer Treaty. which
averted threatening war. secured the withdrawal
OF England from Central America. and her adher
the American policy of neutrality, instead
of being "deluson and snare" was triumph
OF American diplomacy. You say that the INK
scarcely dry upon the treaty before disagree
nents arose concerning Its meaning and effect
which have continued apparently irremediable
down TO the present day 1t is true that disagree
the treaty and continued for ten years. But they
were all settled and settled right. AT least set
tied our way by 1850 and President Buchanan so
announced In his message 10 Congress
These difficulties have never been seriously heard
OF since From 1860 TO 1850 little was heard about
the treaty The evidence OF this IS that Blaine
had actually forgotten its existence when he opened
his famous correspondence with Great Britain In
regard to the canal In 1851. When he does notice
the treaty he proceeds to argue that IL is abrosated
bv changed conditions that the canal is in reality
Ia part of southern coast line" and must be
controlled by the United States. When Blaine went
out of office Frelinghuysen took up this argument
and added some new OF his own, ana de-
nounced the treaty. But England refused 10 ac-
cept this final. and Cleveland twice recognized
the treaty in full force by calling on England TO
live up to her part of it The Hay-PaunceIo'e
treaty and apparently the treaty. confirm
this recognition. The Clayton -Bulwer Treaty was
1850 and remained SATISFACTORY Iu'i
the ideal of the American people changed from a
neutral canal TO canal "a part OF our southern
coast line
you saw that the principle of neutrality was
aimed at in the Clayton Bulwer Treaty put ulaei
q divided or dual guarantee which was speeoly
found TO be impracticahle" AS we have seen 'he
CLAYTON -Bulwer Treaty aimed not at dual guar
antee but at guarantee by the Whoie Woriu-
And when was this found be impractcaoeE
when was u ever tried? Against the argument
from the "suez Canal. with its British protecto-
rate" one might set the Suez Canal. neutralzeu
by the Joint agreement of the world You seem 10
think that the treaty has defeated its own end
because II fails secure neutrality, and that the
new treaty negotiated in the interest or that
same neutrality. Blaine would have been great!
surprised to he told that he was laboring 10 MAKE
'our coast line neutral In time of war In when
we were engaged The far sighted statesmen %
who amended the Hay Pauncefote treaty so that
we could fortify the canal would am sure teel
hat they had labored in vain if they thought these
same Notifications were put there to secure inc
safe passage the warships of nation at war
with the United States.
/ venture predict that the canal, built under