The Winslow mail., 1901-02-14
TWO M'KINLEY BLUNDERS.
How the Administration Is Betray-
ing the Interests of the
People.

People.
An administration is to be Judged
quite as much by what it attempts
to do as by what it actually does.
The success of the Hay-Pauncefote
treaty and of the ship subsidy bill is
not necessary to show where the Nc
Kinley administration stands. 1t has
| attempted to dish" the Monroe doc
tr1ne and it has attempted to open the
doors of the treasury to a raid as
| inexcusable as it is dishonest.
The suspicion existing for some
time that there is a secret under
standing of some description between
the American and British governments
is immensely strengthened by the cir
cumstances under which the Hay
Pauncetote treaty was negotiated and
has been pressed upon the senate.
In one sense it is not important
whether the Nicaragua canal be for
titled or not. The nation with the
most powerful navy will probably con-
| troll the use of it in case of war. It
is of Importance, however, whether
the United States shall recognize the
right of any European nation to in
terfere in matter concerning Amer
lean interests so closely as the Mic
aragua canal does.
1t has been known and admitted for
so years that the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty, in which British claims to
| rights on the isthmus are recognized,
was mistake of great magnitude, to
call it by no harsher name, and, in
| view of the fact that the treaty has
been violated, and by one American
| administration has been denounced, it
has been held by some of the ablest
of American lawyers that it is no
longer in force.
The present administration has act
ed on the theory that the treaty was
still of binding force, and that in ne
! gotiating a new convention it was
necessary to renew the recognition of
British claims which made the earlier
treaty SO offensive to most Ameri-
| cans.
There was one excuse for Mr.. Clay
ton which Mr.. Hay cannot urge. In
Mr. Clayton's day it was proposed to
construct the canal with British cap
ital. In Mr.. Hays day it is the inten-
tion to employ American money, and
the peoples money at that. What
might have been urged as a conces-
sion of necessity in 1850 becomes, un-
der the changed conditions in 1900, a
surrender without palliation and with
out purpose, except as there may be
a secret understanding of some kind
| between the two governments.
If the right of any European power
| to interfere in the matter of an
isthmian canal in America be admit
ted we shall prepare world of trou-
BILE for ourselves. While the Monroe
doctrine does not specifically cover
this question, the Importance of the
| canal in a military sense is so great
that the nation in Europe which has
| anything to say about the canal will
be in position also to say great
| deal about the matters with which
the Monroe doctrine does deal with
much particularly.
Whether there be Notifications at
the entrance of the canal or not is a
question which should be settled by
the United States and by no other
nation. The canal is to be built, if
built at all, with American money. 1t
will necessarily become an important
factor in the coast defense of the re-
public. To complete this great enter
| prise with American money and then
to relinquish American sovereignty
over it would make the canal a source
of weakness rather than of strength.
1t were better that there were no
canal than that hundreds of millions
| of American money should be eXpend-
ed in an undertaking so vital to our
own interests and which on compile
tion would pass beyond our control
1t has been held for half a century
that Mr.. Clayton was hoodwinked in
his negotiations with Bulwer. With
his example before the people all
these years and with the knowledge
of his mistake impressed upon all his
| successors, as it has been, what shall
be said of Mr.. John Hay, who enters
| deliberately into such another trap,
baited, in all probability, in exactly
the same manner? The apparent un-
willingness of the United States SEN
ate to become party 20 his folly is
very creditable to it.
Mr.. Hanna's intense personal inter-
est in the proposed ship subsidy bill
| furnishes stronger evidence of the ad-
ministration's attitude on this subject
than anything which has appeared in
| the written or spoken utt erances of
| the president.
The subsidy scheme is an admins
tration measure. 1t is intended to en-
rich men who have commended them
selves to the administration. 1t is un-
necessary. 1t is extravagant. 1t is
undoubtedly corrupt. 1t certainly
will take millions of money wrung
from the people by taxation and be-
stow it upon interests which have no
claim whatever upon the generosity of
the public. In it's best aspect it is a
lavish gift of public money under false
| pretenses to men already rich. In its
worst aspect it is an objectionable
robbery of the people, involving per-
sonal dishonesty on the part of some
of it's promoters.
In both of these matters Mr.. Nc
X nj IpU'C aHr,i ;ct, L.,