New-York tribune., 1901-11-14
WHAT THE UNITED STATES GOVERN
MENT HAS STEADILY HELD ON
THE SAME SUBJECT.

THE SAME SUSPECT
Our correspondents letter deals chiesv w,.,
matters which have already been so fully Al,
cussed in these columns that anything n,o,.
than publication Of Mr.. Dennis's views uno,
them does not seem at this time to be reouir.d
To some controversial points in his letter bow
ever, reply is fitting. Concerning the JrnitAa
Statess guarantee of the neutrality Of TIA
Panama isthmus and railroad he says that i,
the treaty of 1916 there is nothing said abou,
the guarantee being exclusive and that If This
country has refused to admit any other now.-
to participation in it, "it has been very recently"
The fact is that while as our correspondents
says. the treaty does not make the guarants.
exclusive, this country has from the outset 80
interpreted 1t, and so has Colombia the sucrss
sor OF New-Granada. and as long ago as Sen
tenber 10. 1S5I-certainly not very recently"-
Mr. Cass, the Secretary Of State OF the United
States. in a communication to Lord Napier DE-
clared explicitly that "a joint guarantee by the
United States in common with other powers
of the neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama
is inconsistent rih the policy Of the Tnited
States And he added the same concerning a
joint arrangement for the enforcement OF nell
trality laws That was long ago. and vet it wasa
number of years later than the Clayton Bulwer
Treaty. in which our correspondent seems TO
think this country agreed to share the guaraE-
tee with Great Britain. Again. in 1880 Mr.
Evarts. then Secretary OF State instructed the
United States Minister TO Colombia "to intimate
to the Colombian Government that any con-
cesson TO Great Britain or any other foreign
power. looking to the surveillance and possible
strategic control of highway OF whose neutral
ity We are the guarantors. would be looked
upon by the Government of the United States
introducing interests not compatible with the
treaty relations which We maintain with Co.
lombia." In other words, Mr.. Evarts regarded
our guarantee of neutrality absolutely ex-
elusive. Again, Mr.. Blaine Secretary Of State
in June. 1881. wrote to Mr.. Lowell. our min
lister TO England. that 'fn the Judgment Of the
President this guarantee q. . does not re-
qure reinforcement. or accession. or assent
from any other power" Again. President Ar
thur. in his first annual message. referred to
the suggested guarantee OF the neutrality OF the
Panama Canal by European powers as "a guar
antee which would be in direct contravention
OF our obligation the sole gu1rantOr of the
integrity OF Colombian territory and OF the nsu-
trality of the canal itself" And he added an In
timation that the interjection Of any such for
eign guarantee might be regarded by this coun-
try as an unfriendy act 1t seems TO us that
these official utterances-not to mention others
OF like purDort which might be cited-ampIy
justify our declaration. to which correspond
ent takes exception. that this country Is the
sole guarantor OF isthnnian neutrality at Pana-
ma and that It has emphatcaIly refused to
give any other power partnership in that guar
antee.
Even IL So continues correspondent and
If the same rule be applied TO the projected
canal. il shows nothing except that the United
States could probably also guarantee the canal
from the same sort OF interruption to which the
railroad has been subject-the petty wars and
revolutions of South America" Such was not
the intent of the treaty OF 1915 Its guarantee
was meant TO be against foreign aggression, and
not against domestic revolution Mr.. Clayton
Secretary of State in 1910. wrote thar the Oh
legations which have assumed give US
right to offer. unasked, such advice TO the New
Granadan Government. in regard TO its relations
with other p0cers. as might tend TO avert from
that republic a rupture with any nation which
might covet the Isrhmus OF Panama" Again
Mr.. Seward Secretary of State on November9 D.
1865. referring 10 the guarantee in the treaty
of 1876 wrote: The purpose Of the stipulation
was 10 guarantee the isthmus against SEIZURE
or inrasiou by a foreign poSer only" Mr. FISH
Secretary OF State. on October p. 1913. wrote
This engagement has never been acknowledged
to embrace the duty Of protecting the road
from the violence OF local factions. II Is
as the undoubted duty of the Coloni-
bian Government to protect the road against
attacks by local insurgents The discharge oL
this duty will be insisted upon" Mr.. Fish mao
already, in May. 1871. said that "a principal oo-
ject of New-Granada in entering into the treaty
Is understood TO have been 10 MAINTAIN heF
over the IsthnUs Of Panama Ggdihss
any attack iron, abroad" Neither Mr.. Fish nor
any other United States authority meant Oh
course. to intimate that this country Wouu
have no right 10 intervene for the protection ol
the fsthn1us or it's railroad against local insul
rection for Mr.. Fish himself sanctioned suen
action by detachment Of the United states
naval forces. The point was and is. that uhue
the treaty this country is bound TO protect 'h'
Isthmus against foreign attack only; protec'l0a
against domestic disturbance being gran'eu
only through courtesy or in extreme necesslH'
but never due at the demand of COLOMBIA iH
same rule applied to the proposed canal W0uiU
make a guarantee of neutrality against al 'A
world
Finally Mr. Dennis says that me -
seems ito think that the treaty '-Claytoh-D
wer-''has defeated its own end because II iA-
to secure neutrality" Not at all the Iai
Of the CLAYTON Bulwer Treaty. as we nave
,uently explained, lies in the fact tnat I'm ,
L no isthmian canal has yet been constr
II should not be overlooked that the ooJe'
hat treaty was TO facilitate the constru
of the Nicaragua Canal Had IL not oe7
he pressing desire of the United states -,
time for such a canal-it was the time =. -,
first great rush TO CaIifornia-that treaty
never have been made or thought or Anu -.
hen IL would not have been made ou' ~ 1,,,sd
TACT that Great Britain at that uni1 ~,,.,,.