Evening star., 1939-01-08
Fifty Years Ago
In the Star


p... across Central America was
under discussion in Con-
o"o' gress. On January 4, 1889,
SohtIoI the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations reported favorably a
joint resolution calling upon the Govern
ment to disapprove the connection of
any European government with the con-
struction or control of ship canal across
Nicaragua. The next day Senator Sher-
man called up the resolution and asked
for its immediate passage, but after con-
siderable discussion it was held over
until the 7th. On that day, while the
Senate was considering the resolution in
secret session, the following editorial ap-
peared in The Star:
"The Panama Canal resolution, restat-
ing the Monroe Doctrine, met with un-
expected resistance in the Senate on
Saturday. Objections were made to the
form Of the resolution, to the short time
allowed for considering it, and by some
Senators to the substance of the pro-
posed legislation, on the ground that the
Monroe Doctrine had reference exclu-
sively to political influence and inter-
ference by European governments in
America and not to connection by them
with an American commercial enterprise.
A struggle over declaration of this kind
is unfortunate, as 1t tends to destroy the
effect of the expression of opinion, even
though the declaration is ultimately
made.
The occasion seems to call for an
assertion of the national jealousy of
foreign interference in the affairs Of this
continent. The French government
recognized that its direct participation
In the construction and control Of the
Panama Canal would be hostile to the
traditional policy Of the United States,
and when the canal was begun it dis
avowed any intention to interfere. 1t
has recently refused to make the enter
prise national one. But the question
whether France shall undertake to COM
plete the canal has become to some ex-
tent a French political issue, and a
strong party declares in favor of such
action. The nature OF the declaration
which the United States may make at
this time will have great influence upon
French action.
'The question is not whether the
United States shall permit or refuse to
permit the Panama Canal to be dug, but
whether the work Of completing the
canal shall be attempted by France as a
government instead Of by Frenchmen as
individuals. If the declaration of the
United States is firm and in the line of
its previous utterances, not France, but
another company, representing largely
French capital, will take the place of the
bankrupt concern. The suggestion that
the Monroe Doctrine has reference to
political and not commercial interference
neglects the consideration that govern
ments are constituted for political, not
for commercial enterprises, and that any
interference by them comes to be polit-
ical. II France as q government spends
national money in building q canal
across the isthmus, she will as a nation
follow and protect that expenditure.
Any control which may be secured for
this purpose over the place Of construc-
ton will be necessarily political, and any
action by France in the direction of such
control will necessarily be political action.
"The failure to make substantially
the declaration proposed by the pending
resolution will not only encourage for
eign governments to contend for con-
troll Of the isthmian canal, but it will
establish q bad precedent by indicating
that the old jealousy OF European polit-
ical interference with the affairs Of
this continent Is dying out. The United
States cannot afford to have the artifi-
cial waterway connecting its Atlantic
and Pacific slopes under the control
Of q foreign government, great naval
power, nor can it with safety, the future
being regarded, withdraw from the pol
icy. hostile to foreign interference, hith.
Gto declared"