The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1914-06-09

toiid4llolS OF klaI1C lnEnlSn the canal. 4
that d sound and wise public policy, in !
the interest Of peace and amity and Of
commerce, would dictate that We
should not for a small and, 10 say the
least. doubtful. advantage deliberately |
pursue a curse which Will inevitably |
lead TO such disastrous consequences
to our political and trade relations
with our neighbors and friends upon
this continent. to say nothing about
similar though less acute compliCa-
tons III our commercial and political
relations with the other nations of the
world?
"An Nations
n other contention upon which
the opponents of repeal must rely is
that the phrase "all nations" as used
in the guaranty of equality. means all
other" nations and does not include
the United States.
1t has been intimated that ex-Sec-
rotary of State Hay. who negotiated
the treaty. n in whose knowledge,
sincerity. and patriotism all repose inn
plcjt confidence, did not think the
United States were included in the
term "all nation and his great name
has been INVOKED in support of that
contention.
L have read the correspondence be-
tween Mr.. Hay and our ambassador,
Mr.. ChOate. and Lord Pauncefote and
Lord Lansdowne. There is not a line
in this correspondence to sustain this
contention. On the contrary. it is in
credible to me that anyone who has
carefully read hat correspondence
can doubt what Mr.. Hays intentions
Were-can conclude that he intended
that the treaty as agreed to should re-
serve to the United States any prefer
entail right or exclusive benefit in the
,,~1
since Mr.. Hays death. as we'll as their
correspondence when the treaty was
under obligation, would seem to make
this clear.
All Means ALL
In the Clayton-Bulwer treaty equal
ity between the United States and
Great Britain was in express terms
provided for, and all other nations
were to come in on like terms. Those
provisions seem to ave been always
present IN the minds Of Mr.. Hay. Mr.
Choate, and Mr.. White, and there was
} never any expression used by either OF
them in this correspondence of a diff.
: ferent import.
That was the basic idea pervadins
: the entire negotiations, and, although
t it at times found expression in tn.
: general term of "all nations yet OF
: several occasions there was particula,
ioN VI as WSC
the United States and Great Britain
and as between the United States an
all other nations.
In his letter to Secretary of Stat
Hay. dated August 20, 1901, MI
4 Choate, in suggesting a modilcatio
Of the proposed article 4, which wa
t intended to extend the general prin
ciple Of this treaty to future canals
4 asked the question, "Assuming tina
: some such article must he retained
s how would this do?' And then h
outlined in the following terms hi
opinion of what the proposition
S should be, namely:
In view of the permanent charac
ter of this treaty whereby the genera
principle established by article 8 Q
the Clayton-Bulwer treaty is reaffirm
O ed, the United States hereby declare
r (and agrees) that it will impose n
d other charges or conditions Of traffi
upon any other canal that may b
Y built across the Isthmus cor betwee
the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans tina
such as are just and equitable, an
It that such canals shall be open to tn
It subjects and citizens Of the Unite
e States and of all other nations o
/. equal terms"
c This question showS beyond peraG
# venture Mr.. Choate' idea as to VIVA
II it was intended the treaty should pro
- VI wan S1'Ny
re of treatment of commerce throug
1t the canal.
,e Well knowing Mr.. Choate's mine
q Col. Hay, On September 2. 1901. re
h plying to Mr.. Choate's letter of tn
is goth of August, and referring to til
ic views expressed by him in that lette
h used this language:
s. Your views are so clear and def
mite and so entirely in accord wit
d my own that | find ii unnecessary
"a give You any extended Instructions
ID to this very important matter"
s, Hay and Choate in Accord
te These TWO letters not only sho
re tina Mr. Hay and MIR. Choate were
Of entire accord, but it discloses wha
in their opinion, should be the scoI
er and purport of the agreement b.
r. tween the two countries with respe'
DC to equality of treatment.
MS But if the record we have of n
Hays connection with this ransa
ton does not make his attitude Gle;