Year: 1879

THE ATTITUDE OF THE UNITED STATES.


To THE EDIToR OF THE HERALD:-


read with much interest In yesterdays HERALD
the brief cable reply of NJ de Lesseps the Burnside
resolutions relating to the proposed Darien Canal.
The proposition of United States interference origin
ates partly from jealousy in that other than Aneri
cans are allowed take the initiative in the
struction of great commercial highway across the
American continent, and partly from self-interest
that the United States might receive greater benefits
from the undertaking II 1t were under its control.
But making due allowance for national pride and self
interest we must that the laws of nterna-
tonal commerce. mightsay theiaws of international
economy to be taken into account in the con-
struction and management OF any great means of
international communication or transportation.
We must remember that the Paris Congress which
adopted the plan of the proposed canal was pri-
vate unofficial body of individuals; that although
some of the delegates possessed semi-ofcial char
acter yet their deliberations and conclusions called
for submission to or ratification by the govern
ments of their respective countries. The money
and the men to execute this great plan
are to be furnished from private mot
oficiaN sources, and tho canal when completed
assuming that 1t is to be completely is to be
open to all the world, and its management
conformed to the laws of international highways





law of nations that interoceanic canals shall be
neutral and open to all the world 1t is only because
the construction and use Of such canals rare
and recent that precedent has not INTERVIEWED to
form . rule and not because the common sense and
common conscience Of the nations do not approve
the principle Of neutrality At the last conference
OF the Association for the Reform and Codificatou
of the Law of Nations, the following resolution was
passed THAT in the opinion of the association it
is for the interest of the OF the world that
the navigation OF the Suez Canal and similar works
should be declared by international act to be for
ever open and free and exempt from any attack IN
OF war. The same principle is declared in the
Treaty of Washington.


The Monroe doctrine" so often referred to would
have to be stretched to its utmost limit to the
case Of the construction and operation of canal
across the Isthmus Of Panama 10 territory which no
more belongs to the United States than Patagonia
does by private enterprise, and subject to the law
of nations in respect to the freedom of it's 1t
to that the athor of this doctrine, had he
lived in the present decade and since the promulga-
tion more recent views of the international rela-
tons of the United States. would have had occa-
sion now to announce It, II the doctrine means
anything. 1t means that sef-preservation is the
first law Of ,.t,a nations = as we as Of nature.
that the United States government should not inter-
fere with the affairs Of other nations 1t partly
true and partly false. This doctrine. accepted in
certain sense. would the United States to
NIT the international absurdity of standing by
itself egotstical. ''independent'' government,
outside of the pale Of International law and outside
of the family OF nations. 1t would disregard the
irresistible logic Of events and the common con-
the doctrine would warrant all kinds OF interference
in the affairs of this continent. As well might
Brazil attempt to control the policy of the
whole of South America the United States to
control the policy of North America, say nothing
of the policy of the whole Western Continent. It
would not be surprising il the ''Monroe doctrine
yet invoked to authorize the government to take
Canada aud assume control Of the proposed railway
British America.


But aside from all this. what advantage would
there be in the control by the United States of the
Darieh Canal? II it controlled it would
have to be neutral and open to all the world with
only toll burden as is now proposed). or else the
European nations would take to that il
should be open and neutral. United States gov
ernmental interference in this matter now
is nothing unless il is prevention Of the
construction OF the canal. thing which the rest of
the world would condemn with voice, and of
which the people of this country would be heartily
ashamed IT the construction of this most magnif-
cent of engineering and commercial works has been
intrusted to European supervision, 1t Is only the
result of the operation or natural laws which It
would be as idle as would be unwise tor the people
or the government Of the United States to attempt
to prevent retard. am, yours, &C.,


NEw YORK, July 2. 1870 A. p. SPRAGUE.