The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1914-05-05
THE TOLLS CONTROVERSY

John B.. Henderson, Jr., in Washing
ton Times: Prior to 1850, the year of
the ClaytOn-BulWer treaty, there
never was any immediate prospect or
the United States or, indeed, Of any
other nation constructing a canal be-
tween the Atlantic and the Pacific,
notwithstanding that several con-
.structive schemes had been advanced
and 1T was generally felt that some
day the canal would really be built.
The only real apprehension we had
was lest some nation, particularly
England, might build the canal and
then seek to control it in a manner
~prejudicial to our national interest.
In other words, we could not tolerate
the idea of a canal that was not made
neutral by a very solid and lasting
international guarantee.
The chief cause Of our lively APP
prehension on this source lay in the
disquteting fact that England owned
considerable territory in Central
America, and, moreover, showed a
very decided tendency to acquire still
more. At that time the Nicaragua
route was generally regarded as the
most fesible one, and the fact that
England had a pr~OtcCtorate over
'Mosquitia'-now a province, or state,
of Nicaragua-and kept seeking per
sistently to extend the northern
boundary of this protectorate, even to
include Greytown, the Atlantic term
inal of the probable canal route, fur
nished US no unreasonable grounds
for suspicion that she sought to COM
mand the territory through which the
canal might some day pass.
British aggresiOns in Central Amer
lea not only gave rise to this suspic-
but also seemed to bid defiance
to the much w]Orshipped Monroe doc
trine.
The situation. threatening enough
at all times, became very acute when
England suddenly attempted TO ac-
quire Tigre island, near the proposed
Of the canal. SO infamed
became public opinion throughout the
United States that war actually
threatened and it may not be going
TOO far to say that a conflict was only
aVerted by the ClaNtOn-BulWcr treaty
of April 10, 1850.
BY the terms Of this instrument
England was willing to cease her eff
forts to enlarge her Central Ameri-
can territory, provided only that the
Unlted States would promise never to
hulId an isthmian canal without first
Joining with England in a guarantee
of its neutrality.
To this end both powers promised
to erect no Notifications along it's
course, and they gave a most solemn
pledge never to seek any exclusive
control e any canal ever to be
built.
Up to this point, then, the one con-
Germ Of the United States in the mat
Ter OF canal policy was to make posi-
1--WE and assured the international
Of neutrality Of any water
way across the isthmus and to re-
move every doubt or threat that
might stand in the way Of such a
conclusion.
TO accomplish this we even went
lar as to agree never to ACQUIRE
territory in Central America for
the purpose Of canal construction.
The idea was simply than any canal.
whenever, and by whomsoever. built,
should pass through a neutral terri
tory, should not be fortified, and that.
IN TACT, the canal should be regarded
much in the light Of an arm Of the
sea, fashioned by nature and not by
man.
The events leading up to the Civil
war and the internal dissensions that
oloWed put a quietus for many
upon canal schemes, although
the question was never wholly lost
Slsht or. with President Grant there
appears to have originated the idea
OF a canal owned and solely controll-
by the United States, with no
guarantee Of neutrality whatever.
This notion became crystalIized into
= national policy about the year 1880.
Thereafter, until Cleveland became
president, efforts were most vigor-
Dusty made by every secretary Of
state to circumvent the prohibitions
% such a canal policy on our part
set forth in the paragraphs of the
clayton Bulwer treaty. With the
cleveland administration there was a
temporary return to the older order
IF belief-that is, neutralized water
Way-and for a time the Clayton
8ulwer treaty received less attention
n the state department..
The more grandiose notions of
world prowess that We took on as a
,esult Of u successful conflict with
spain no doubt influenced very
deeply public opinion on the canal