New-York tribune., 1901-12-10
AGAINST TREATY OR C4N4L'


Opposition to the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty is
being developed. 1t is vigorous and outspoken'
but it does not appear TO be of sufficient volume
10 imperil the ratification of the treaty we
must add also that despite the eioquence and
intellectual acumen of its chief spokesman lts
logic is neither convincing nor apparent
Senator Bailey of Texas. whom we may prop
erly regard as the leader of the opposition. MADE
known in the special Washington correspond
ence of yesterdays Tribune the grounds of his
hostility to the treaty. 1t takes, he says, Great
Britain into partnership with the United states.
In what respect? Certainly it is not IN negou-
ating with Nicaragua and Costa Rica or Colom-
bia: nor in selecting and surveying the route
nor planning constructing and paying for the
canal. nor in operating. managing and control
ling it: nor in guaranteeing its neutrality and III
defending it against disturbance or attack All
these functions reserved exclusively TO the
United States. There is not a trace of British
or any other partnership in the matter Fer
haps. however Senator Bailey has in mind, in
speaking of partnership that general prln-
cpIe" of the eighth article of the Clayton-Bul-
wer Treaty. which is reaffirmed in the new
treaty; for he says he will not be satisfied until
every vestige" of the CIayton-Bulwer Treaty
is wiped out Now that general principle does
not even hint at a partnership. So far as this
country is concerned. it is merely an application
TO our canal of about the same system which
we have been maintaining the Panama
Railroad for the last half century. 1t is not to
be supposed that Senator Bailey objects to that
And so far as Great Britain is concerned, 1t is
simply a pledge that she will respect the neu-
traiity of the canal and never try to seize upon
it. and that. moreover. she will maintain ike
neutrality upon her railroad across the 1sthmus
of Tehuantepec Certainly Ii is not conceivable
that Senator Bailey objects to those provisions.
For if he did, what would be the reverse, 10
which he would give his approval: That Great
Britain would not recognize nor respect the neu-
trality of our canal nor grant neutrality on her
railroad. Most assuredly that, in the Senator'S
own vigorous words lis something the Ameri-
can people will not stand
Finally. Senator Bailey speaks of the canal
as IA work of worldwide scope and permanent
character which undoubtedly it is or will be,
and vet he demands that shall build and
manage that waterway as see fit. consider
''ing the wishes of other nation except the
countries through whose territory the canal
will run" Does it not appear 10 him that there
is a certain incompatibility between those ex-
pressions? A work of worldwide scope would
surely seem to be an affair of worldwide inter
est and something in which other nations are
concerned. And while this country would and
could of course brook no dictation meddling
in the matter by any other nation, "a decent re-
spect to the opinion of mankind" in Thomas
Jefferson's phrase, would seem to require it 10
proclaim this work of worldwide scope" to be
also A work of worldwide use and benefcence.
OF course. if we mean to make the canal our
own private waterway. for the use of COM
merce but our own, that is another story. In
such case we should make such treaty as
this. we should drop all talk about "a work of
worldwide scope" and we should begin to COM
pute with fear and trembling the rate of tolls
that would have to be charged to make own
commerce pay for the canal. But if, as we have
supposed the canal is to he a highway for the
commerce of the world, In Senator Baileys
phrase "a work of worldwide scope" and the
mercantile fleets of Great Britain and Germany
and other lands are to pass through IL and to
pay tolls for its maintenance then it is difficult
to see how better scheme could be devised
than that prescribed in this Hay-Pauncefote
Treaty.
1t was declared some time ago that there was
no valid ground for opposition to this treaty,
save the part of those who were either op-
posed to the canal itself or desirous of picking
quarrel with Great Britain. 1t is, of course, in
conceivable that Senator Bailey should be sub
ject to either of these motives. and therefore
we must regard with surprise his opposition to
the treaty If such opposition is not inexplcable,
it is at least not explained by the Senator him
self in the statement with which he has favored
us for publication.