Evening star., 1933-10-22
PANAMA CANAL AUTHORITY
WON AFTER LONG DISPUTE
Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, Which Renounced
Sole Control by u. S. or Great Britain,
Was Finally Abrogated.

regarded "as injurious to the just rights
and interests of the United States and
as menace to their welfare"
President Hayes, alarmed by Colom-
bian concession to a French company
to pierce the ISthmus Of Panama, de-
clared emphatically, in a special mes
country is a canal under American
control. The United States cannot con-
sent to the surrender Of this control to
any European power, or to any combi-
nation Of European powers"
He added that the canal would be so
important for maritime communication
between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts
OF his country that it should constitute
"a part of the coast line of the United
States"
Thence, paramount interest" and
coast line of the United States" be-
came two catchwords OF United States
policy with respect to an interoceanic
canal. No President or Secretary Of
State, since then, failed to mention
them. But President Hayes went fur
ther. Without expressly referring to it.
he brought in the Monroe Doctrine to
support his claim. He said that the
capital invested by corporations or citi-
~--~ - NSAANA SAAIA Jll ouCll dIl
terprlSe must. - great degree, look for
protection to one or more of the great
powers OF the world. adding that no
european power could intervene for
Such protection without adopting meas
ures on this continent which the Unit
ed States would deem wholly inadmis-
sible.''
Garfield Backs Policy.
Exclusive control of any suggested in
teroceanlc canal became the obsession
OF the Northern statesmen. President
Garfield, in his inaugural address in
sisted upon the right and duty of the
! united States to assert and main
/ tain such supervision and authority
over any interoceanic canal across the
iSthmus"
His Secretary Of State, James G.
Blaine, contended that the guarantee
OF neutrality Of the canal given by the
United States did not require "re-en-
1orcement, or accession. or assent from
any other power" He pointed out the
vital interest which the canal would
nave for the United States commercial
! ly and also in cases of military emer-
gencles. and supported Hayes invoca-
ton of the Monroe Doctrine. by declar-
ing that the administrations policy in
this respect was nothing more than the
pronounced adherence of the United
ated bv the highest authority of the
government and now firmly in
woven as an integral and important
part OF our national policy"
AS this policy was no longer in
harmony with the Clayton-Bulwer
treaty of 1850, Secretary Blaine began
Immediately to sound the British gov
ernment on the possibility of discard
ing that instrument and substituting
one in which the paramount interests
| OF the United States in an interoceanic
canal would be recognized. He de-
scribed eloquently the vital concern of
the United States for the canal. its COM
mercial significance dor this country. its
great military value, and added that
TO permit the European nations to
exercise protectorate over the Isthmus
would be contrary to the Monroe Doc
trine."
Determination Shown.
His successor. Secretary Frelinghuyser
reiterated the demand for notification
of the Clayton -Bulwer treaty on the
ground that it was ''in conflict with q
doctrine which has been for many years
asserted by the United States" ard
which has been approved by the Gov
eminent of Great Britain" Although
1t is difficult to find any justification
for this latter statement. the earnest
endeavors of Blaine. Frelinghuysen and
their representatives in London to bring
about the abandonment of the Clayton
Bulwer treaty show the firm determi.
nation already existing in the Wash
lngton government to remove any OBJ
stables in the way of its exclusive con-
troll of the canal.
1t was only after several years and
when England was embarrassed by its
difficulties in the Boer War that these
endeavors succeeded. and the Clayton
Bulwer treaty finally abrcgated The
Hay-Pauncefote treaties of 1900 and
1901 removed the last stumbling block"
and gave the United States the eX.
elusive right" of providing for the regu-
latiOn and management of the canal"
1t was evident. from that moment on
that the United States would not stop
until it had secured effective and &C
tual control of the canal 1t finally did
so by means of the Hay -Herran treaty,
signed with Colombia. after long and
difficult negotiations, on January %.
1923.
The details of the rejection of the
Hay-Herran treaty by the Colombian
Senate. the outbreak Of the separatist
revolution. which resulted in the set
ting up of the independent Republic Of
Panama, and the concession by this to
the United States Of all. and even more
than the rejected Colombian treaty had
contemplated is already too we'll known
to need repetition here.
| (Copyrisht, 1a33O