Evening star., 1901-05-24
MAY BE ABROGATED
E1-Secretary Foster so Holds of the
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty
THE PRECEDENTS OF HISTORY
Conditions as to the Canal Have
Materially Changed.
NO FEAR OF DISCRED1T


State. has contributed to the current issue
of the independent an article on the Clay
ton-Bulwer treaty discussing that much
debated Instrument from the point of view
of it's application to the latest phase of the
isthmian canal question. Mr.. Foster lays
down as his primal proposition that ''it is
a well-recognized principle of international
law that change of circumstances may dis
solve the obligations of treaties This
declaration he proceeds to justify by
numerous historical references, showing
that frequently in both the remote and the
near past contracting powers have set
aside treaty obligations on the ground of
changed conditions. such when this
country refused to adhere to the terms of
a treaty regarding the West Indies. con-
tracted with France under Louis XVI. be-
cause in the meantime the French revou-
t!On had caused material change in the
status of the French government. He fur
ther cites the convention of 1877 between
the nited States and Great Britain re-
garding the armament of the two powers
on the great lakes which has been effect
ually abrogated on occasion of necessity.
and is now dead letter in those provisions
without any express agreement between
the parties. Mr.. Foster proceeds:
1T was shown by Secretary Frelinghuy-
sen in his correspondence with the British
government, in 1SS2. that the ClaytOn-Bul-
wer treaty was negotiated to secure the
construction of particular interoceanic
canal. by a private corporation and under
plans then set on foot. and that these pro-
jects all came to naught- Since the treaty
was made half a century ago a great
Transformation has occurred in the physi-
cal conditions of this continent and in the
political development and policy of the
United States. From 2}.U0 900 people we
have grown to i60D,O0. the population of
our Pacific coast has increased one hum
dredfpld. and our territorial possessions on
Or ftay,
doubled in area by the acquisition of Alas
ka- We have acquired the Hawaiian and
the Philippine Islands with their many mil
Hons or people Since the negotiation Of
the ClaytOn-Bulwer treaty the whole face
of affairs in the orient has changed And
from limited continental power with it's
population mainly on the Atlantic coast :
We nave grown to world power, with
greatly enlarged interests in the Pacific
ocean 1t is idle to contend that a nation
which has undergone such marvellous de-
Neloplnent and transformation, should to-
day be held to the terms of a treaty made
half century ago to accomplish an enter
prise then in life, but long since extinct"
Belize.
On the point of the British government
that the enlargement of Belize, subsequent
to the treaty. could not be held to consti-
tUte violation of the convention based
upon Sir Henry Bulwer's notes, and Secre
tary Clayton's acquiescence to the effect
that the treaty did rot apply to Belize. Mr.
Foster says that those notes were ey
changed after the treaty had been ratified
by the Senate, and could not therefore be
considered as altering the terms of the
treaty Mr.. Foster continues:
The title of Great Britain to the settle
ment' of Belize had its origin in the treaty
o. ltN3 between Great Britain and Spain
II which the latter granted to the British
the right TO cut and export lOgwood in the
region described. This privilege was en-
larged by the treaty of 1886 to the cutting
Os all kinds Of wood. and 1t was expressly
stipulated that there should not be the for
nation of any system Of government either
military or civil, further than such reguIa-
tons as the two governments may Judge
proper 10 establish for maintaining peace
ana good order all the lands In
question being indisputably acknowledged
10 belong of right to the crown of SPAIN
Upon this slender title alone Great Rrit-
ain assumed To herself complete sovereign
" over the enlarged crown colony of Brit
Ism Honduras. after the signature of the
treaty of 1850. Whether or not this act
was In violation of the treaty 1t was un-
questionably in disregard OF the Monroe
doctrine, and does not place the British
government In good position to claim the
observance of the treaty. But 1T is not
necessary to rest the action of the Unit ed
states in Withdrawing from the obliga-
fitions OF that convention upon the Belize
matter Lawrence. an Englishman the au-
thor of one of the latest works on fnterna-
tional law and professor in Cambridge
University, who combated Secretary Ere
!nghuysens contention that Great Britain
had violated the treaty in the creation of
The Belize colony, has said that if the po-
sltion were taken that the United States
have grown so great since the treaty of
1870 were signed, and their interests in the
canal are So far superior to those of any
other power. that they ought to have a
preponderins voice in determining the
rules to be adopted-such a position would
have been impregnable.'
"Historic Policy"
Recently certain American writer's have
maintained that the amendments made by
the Senate to the Hay-Pauncefote treaty
are IN opposition to the historic policy of
the United States and in support of this
assertion citation has been made of the
declaration Of Mr.. Clay and other secre-
faries of state in favor of the naturalization
OF an iSthmian canal ard its free and equal
use by the vessels OF all nations. Such dec
larations are in accord with the historic
policy Of the United States and with the
present sentiment of the American people;
but the question raised by the Senate
amendments Is whether government
after having constructed the canal at its
own exclusive cost. shall have the right to
exclude our enemy from it's use in time Of
war And that question never was present.
ed TO the successive secretaries of state In
making the declaration cited by them and
IL Is fair TO infer from our knowledge OF
their character and views that they did
ii
tn its naturalization.
For several years after the treaty was
proclaimed II was the subject of earnest
discussion and divergence of views, but II
is 10 be borne in mind that all the uues-
tons at that time were of a territorial
Character and had no reference to the
construction and use of the canal Hence
whatever declarations or admissions were
then made by officials Of our government
respecting the treaty, they have no ap-
pl!cability to the questions now presented
under the treaty relating to the canal
American Presidents In Accord.
The subject OF the construction OF a
canal lay dormant for thirty years, ana
practically nothing was done until NJ De
Leseps initiated the Panama project And
then the government OF the United States
spoke with no uncertain voice. President
Hayes felt II necessary to make ii the sub
Ject of special message to Congress in
which he declared that the policy of this
Country is a canal under American control
and that such a canal would be virtually a
part OF the coast line of the United States
This message was followed by an inquiry
by Secretary Evarts of the French mfnts-
ter In Washington as TO whether the
French government was giving to the De
Leseps enterprise any official or moral SUD-
port: and this drew from the I he