Evening star., 1901-05-24

unbroken line of Presidents and secreta-
ries of State who favored an exclusively
American canal. but the latter, In with
drawing the Zavala treaty from the Sem
ate, indicated a divergence of views from
his predecessors. So that, with this excep-
ton, the Senate amendments represent the
historic policy of the United States from
the time the construction OF the canal De-
came a practical question of discussion
up to the signature of the Hay-Paunce-
fote treaty.
AbrOgation Must BE Considered.
''The rejection by Great Britain of this
latter treaty as amended by the Senate,
throws back upon the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty. which, in addition to it's prohibition
of an American canal, contains also the
prohibition of the acquisition by the United
States of any rights of sovereignty in the
territory through which the canal shall
pass. If the United States IS to be called
upon to invest hundreds of millions of dol
lars in canal which is to be virtually an
extension of our coast line IS it compatible
with the interests or the dignity of this
great country to continue under such a
ban? If the republics of Central America
would be willing to cede such sovereignty
what nation of Europe should have the
right to object?
The action of Great Britain forces con-
sideraton of the question of the abro-
CATION of the treaty of 1850, unless one
the other government recedes from it's po-
S4liOn- L take II Tor granted that no such
course is contemplated by our government,
as 1t has been the settled practice to ac-
cept the action of the Senate on a treaty
as final. where the question at issue has
been fully considered, and the Senates
wishes have been stated in unmistakable
terms.
The amendments of the Senate have
three objects in view. The first looks to
the termination of the treaty of 1850
The second. while stipulating for the neu-
trallzatlon of the canal, reserves the right
To the United States of taking such meas
ures as will prevent its use to our injury
by an enemy in time of war. The third
releases us from any obligation to ask
other powers to unite in the guarantee
OF neutrality. 1t has been suggested that
Great Britain might consent to the abro-
cation of the treaty on condition that our
government would stipulate for the neu-
tralizatiOn of the canal. Such an ad-
1ustment of the subject would be entirely
feasible. with the reservation contained in
the Senate amendment
But If no such adjustment can he
reached, Great Britain can have no real
cause for complaint if at it's next session
Congress shall see fit to declare the treaty
abrogated. DIR. Wharton, the learned
writer on International law, has said that
by no power has the principle of changed
circumstances been more strictly enforced
than by Great Britain. The inter-
mediate changes she has appealed to as
sustaining her repudation of her treaties
are far less material than the changes in
America which. since the treaty of 1850
nave left that treaty without an object to
which, in the sense in which 1t was framed
Il can rightfully apply
No Cause for British CompIaint.
Neither can Great Britain allege that
she has not had sufficient notice of the
wishes and intentions of the people Of
the United States. The announcement of
President Hayes. confirmed by his success
and Ia %
Blaine and Frelinghuysen. constitute an in
dlcation of the trend of public sentiment
not to be neglected. The fact that a large
majority of the Senate voted for the ZayaIa
treaty. and which only lacked one vote of
a tWo-thlrdS majority, and the passage Of
the Hepburn canal bill by an overwhelming
vote of the House in the last Congress-
We're further indications that it was the
determination of the American people not
TO allow the treaty of 1870 to obstruct
their wishes The various expressions Of
one or the other branches of Congress or
OF its committees, have oil been in the
same direction. One of tn, Inost notable of
these was the unanimous report of the
committee on foreign relations of the Sem
ate presented to the Fifty-first Congress bv
Its chairman John Sherman. In its re-
View of the history Of the treaty of 1880 II
asserted that it had become obsolete. and
1t reported to the Senate that the I -uited
states is at present under no obligation
measured either by the terms of the con-
''iiti'Ilr tiit PIES OF DuDllC law Or good
morals. to refrain from promoting in any
way that 1t may deem best for it's lust in
tcreSts the construction of this canal with
out regard to anything contained in the
convention of 1sJo. To this report are an
pended the names of every member of the
committee. both republicans and demo-
Gratis. and among them were two Secre-
tarles of States, Messrs. Evarts and Sher-
man. and so prudent a statesman and able
lawyer as George F. Edmunds.
ny..-.
Every committee of Congress which has
investigated the subject has concurred in
the views of the Senate committee above
cited. that the treaty is no longer binding
on the United States. That no action has
as yet been taken by Congress has grown
out of the reluctance of the legislative de-
partment of the government to express its
WILL so long as there was any hope that
the executive department might bring
Great Britain to recognize the right of the
United states to construct the canal re-
gardless of the Clayton -Bulwer treaty
Ihat hope seems to be dispelled by the re-
lection OF the amended Hay-Pauncefote
treaty. The action of the Senate at the
last session should be held as notice to
Great Britain of the Inevitable legislation
which would follow rejection
Congress need have no fear that the
falr fame of the country Will suffer by the
aprogatlon of the treaty. 1t can point to a
record OF treaty faith in the past century
unsurpassed by any other nation. But the
history of this nation and Of all nations
teaches that there are times and circum
stances under which a government can
properly declare itself released from the
binding force of treaties which in their
terms are to run without limit Such a
time came to the United States In the
presidency of Washington, when the treaty.
Of alliance with France was dtsregarded
and finally abrogated by act of Congress
Such time has again come, when the
highest interests of our country and the
maintenance of the Monroe doctrine re-
quire that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty
should be terminated by act of Congress"