The times., 1901-03-26

undertake all the obligations imposed by
Article ~ of the treaty. contain the only
provisions not replaced by new provi-
sions, covering the same ground, in the
convention
Under Article l of the Clayton-BulweT
Treaty the two Powers agreed that neith-
or would occupy, or fortify, or coionize,
or assume any dominion over any part
of Central America, nor attain any of the
foregoing objects by protection afforded
/ To, or alliance with, any State or people
| of Central America. There is no similar
| agreement in the convention. If, there
fore, the treaty were wholly abrosated,
both Powers would, except in the vicinity
of the canal recover entire freedom of
action in Central America. The change
would certainly be Of advantage to the
United States. and might be of substan-
| tial Importance.
PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE VI
Under the other surviving portion of
the treaty part of Article VD provision
is made for treaties with the Central
American States in furtherance of the OBJ
ject of the two Powers, and for the eXer-
| else of good offices should differences
! arise as to the territory through which
the canal will pass. In this case abroga-
1 tion would perhaps signify but little to
this country. There is nothing in the
! convention to prevent Great Britain from
! entering into communication or exercs-
ing good offices with the Central Ameri-
! can States should difficulties hereafter
arise between them and the United
/ States.
The other two amendments present
more formidable difficulties.
| The first of them which reserves to
the United States the right of taking any
| measures which it may find necessary to
/ secure by it's own forces the defence of
! the United States, appears TO his Majes-
! tvs Government TO involve distinct de-
parture from the principle which has un-
I til now found acceptance with both Gov
| eruments; the principle. namely, that in
| time Of war as well as in time of peace
| the passage of the canal is to remain
| free and uuimpeded, and is to be so main
/ tanned by the Power or Powers response
bic for its control
Were this amendment added to the
| convention the United States would, it
| is presumed, be within their rights if
| at any moment when it seemed to them
! that their safety required it, in view OF
warlike preparations not yet commenced.
! but contemplated. or supposed to be CON
tempiated, by another Power, they resort
! ed TO warIi1e acts in or near the canal
acts clearly inconsistent with the neutral
| character which it has always been
sought to give it, and which would deny
/ the free use Of it to the commerce and
/ navies Of the world
| ANALOGY WITH THE sUEZ CANAL
1T appears from the report Of the Sem
! ate committee that the proposed addi-
| tion to Article II WAS adopted from Arti-
| Gle Y of the Suez Canal Convention,
which runs as follows:
Similarly, the provisions of Articles
IL, Y. VII, and VIII shall not interfere
with the measures which his Majesty the
/ Sultan and his Highness the Khediye. in
/ the name OF his Imperial Majesty. and
within the limits of the firmans granted.
might find ii necessary to take for Sc
curing by their own forces the defence of
| Egypt and the maintenance Of public or
der
a. In case his Imperial Ma jesty the Sui
tan, or his Highness the Khediye should
find it necessary to avail themselves of
the exceptions for which this article pro-
yides. the signatory Powers of the De
cIaration Of London shall be notified
/ thereof by the Imperial Ottoman Coy
/ ernment.
! a. II is likewise understood that the pro-
/ visions of the four articles aforesaid shall
! in no case occasion any obstacle to the
! measures which the imperial Ottoman
| Government may think il necessary to
/ take in order TO ensure by its own forces
the defence OF its other possessions sit
uated on the eastern coast of the Ped
Sea
1T is. ! understand contended in sup
port Of the Senate amendment that the
existence Of the above provisions in the
Suez Canal Convention justiiies the de-
mand now made for the insertion of anal
ogous provisions in regard to the proposed
Nicaragua Canal.
But the analogy which IL has been
attempted to set up fails in one essential
particular. The banks OF the Suez Canal
are within the dominions of territorial
| sovereign. who was a party to the conven-
tion, and whose established interests it
/ was necessary TO protect, whereas the
| Nicaragua Canal will be constructed in
territory belonging not to the United
States, but 10 Central American States,
Of whose SOY ereign rights other Powers
cannot claim TO dispose.
Moreover, il seems to have escaped at
ter.tion that Article Y of the Suez Canal
Convention receives most important mod
ihcation from Article XI, which lays
down that the measures which shall be
taken IN the cases provided for by Ard-
cles * and Y of the present treaty
shall not interfere with the free use of
the canal The article proceeds to say
that: IN the same cases. the erection of
permanent Notifications contrary TO the
provisions Of Article VII is prohibited
OTHER ARTICLES SPECIFIED.
Article ~ guarantees that the mari
time canal shall remain open in time Of
war as a free passage even to the ships
of war of beIIiserents. and regulates the
revictualing, transit. and detention Of
such vessels in the canal
Article Y regulates the emba rkstion
and Decentralization Of troops. munitions
or materials Of war by belligerent Pow
ers in time Of war.
Article VII prohibits the Powers from
keeping any vessel of war in the waters
OF the canal
Article VIII imposes on the agents of
tho signatory Powers in Egypt the duty