Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-01-24

of it. The "gray-eyed man. fulfilled his
destiny by getting shot by the commander
of the troops of the republic of Nicaragua,
which recognized neither him nor the King
of Mosquito. The treaty was the outcome
of the fussiness of Sir Henry Bulwer, who
was then our minister at Washington, and
who always wanted to attract attention to
himself whenever he was in official resi-
dence. The object was to make an agree
: ment by which neither Great Britain nor
the United States should annex any por-
ton Of Central America. The Americans
objected to our annexations there on the
ground of the Monroe doctrine They them
selves did not want to annex it, and they
Were inclined to discourage filibustering
expeditions in that direction by their own
citizens. canal was then regarded as a
vague possibility outside of the area of
practical politics, and the clauses in the
treaty referring to 1t were introduced to
meet that possibility, and yet maintain the
scope of the treaty in regard to the prin-
ciple of accommodation of territory.
The French capitalists later on attempted
to make the Panama canal. Millions were
wasted and after the credulity of French
investors had been exhausted the attempt
was abandoned because the cash could not
be found to continue 1t. 1t Is therefore
clear that, unless some state undertakes
to pierce the isthmus, 1T will never be
pierced. If the Americans like to under
take this useful task, we should not hinder
them by insisting on any right that We
have to NEEDLE with them owing to the
The state making the canal should, pro-
vided that it can agree with the republic
through whose territories 1t passes, have q
full right to regulate the conditions under
which it may be used by foreign countries
If it consents that the vessels of countries
with which it is at peace may use 1t on the
same terms as it's own vessels, SO much the
better. But on this we have no right to
insist. The Nicaragua route is not the only
one for canal, and If we or other countries
object to the terms on which we are al
| lowed to use that made by the United
| States, we or they should meet this by
| making another canal. 1t is only reason
| able that, If the United States takes the
risks and spends its money in piercing the
isthmus, it should fortify Its canal and
| prohibit It's use by the commercial marine
Of any state with which it is at war, and by
| the vessels of war of any states engaged IN
| hostilities with each other. This seems 10
me the common-sense view OF the matter
| We did our best to prevent the Suez canal
being made When it was made we man
| aged to lay hold Of Egypt, which gives US
| the absolute command over the canal Our
record in regard to canals piercing CONT
nents is not clean. In the event OF our
being at war with France, does any one
suppose that we should not close the Suez
canal to French commerce, and that, II
| French vessel were to reach Port said, we
should regard the canal as neutral pas
sage in which the vessel would be protect
ed from capture? Our real plea for being
masters of the canal is that 1t is the high
road between our possessions In Europe ana
| in Asia, and the Nicaraguan canal would
be primarily a sea passage between the
Atlantic and the Pacific possessions OF the
United States
Treaties, as pointed out a week or two
ago. are permanent or transitory. The lat
| ter a state may abrogate by duly notifying
| its intention to do SO; the former 1t cannot
| Either we or the United States might de-
| clare the Clayton Bulwer treaty abrogated,
| because it has not permanent character,
and the two countries would fall back on
the status quo ante