PANAMA CANAL. 



719 



publics are alone parties to the treaty. What they 

 Lave made they can tear up. The neutrality of the 

 canal is for the time suspended." It seems, to say the 

 leastj to be an unhappy use of language to describe 

 the sincere co-operation of the European governments 

 in a common object as of the nature ot an alliance 

 against the United States. Any statement hereafter 

 made by Mr. Lowell, of the views of bis govern- 

 ment in regard to the matter, which has almost ceased 

 to be purely a matter of abstract politics, will com- 

 mand attention, but he must expect to find English- 

 men quite unprepared to see any great difference be- 

 tween the position of Nicaragua and that of Panama ; 

 and at a loss to conceive what injury American in- 

 terests could suffer from a general compact to secure 

 the neutrality of a pathway which, in the interests of 

 the whole world, should be placed outside of the re- 

 gion of warfare. 



The "Daily News" said: 



There probably never was a time when all the Eu- 

 ropean powers were more thoroughly well disposed 

 toward America than now. Mr. Elaine's arguments, 

 therefore, are certain of a patient and, indeed, of a 

 friendly hearing ; but as a piece of logic the circular 

 can hardly be considered by his best friends to be 

 very powerful. By the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, Amer- 

 ica recognized the propriety of what she now regards 

 as an intrusion. All great commercial countries will 

 be deeply interested in the Panama Canal. The mari- 

 time powers will be under strong temptations in tirna 

 of war to violate its neutrality. Their signatures to 

 the guarantee will consequently be absolutely neces- 

 sary, unless the United Istatcs are prepared to take 

 upon themselves an enormous responsibility. Per- 

 haps the most unfortunate suggestion of the circular 

 is that the proposed guarantee would be in the nature 

 of an alliance against America. It is impossible to 

 see how a purely peaceful convention can oe an alli- 

 ance against anybody unless it involves exclusion. It 

 is unnecessary to say that nobody propose* to ex- 

 clude the United States from the benefit of the pro- 

 posed neutrality. It is to bo hoped that the matter 

 will take a different turn from that suggested in the 

 circular, which must surely have been issued undor 

 some misconception. 



The " Pall Mall Gazette " contained the fol- 

 lowing remarks: 



It can not be doubted that Mr. Elaine's circular 

 was not actuated by any historical policy, but by the 

 fear tliat an international guarantee might interfere 

 with the arrangement by which the United States 

 and Colombia reserved to themselves the right to pass 

 their men-of-war and troops through the canal at all 

 times, while providing that the canal should be closed 

 to nations at war with either contracting party. Tho 

 expedient of America for securing her interest in the 

 Panama Canal by negotiating a treaty by surprise 

 with a small. weaK state is not much happier than the 

 British purchase of Suez Canal shares, which aimed 

 at a similar object. European powers might legiti- 

 mately hesitate to commit tne virtual command of one 

 of the very greatest commercial routes in the world 

 to one very strong power and one verv weak one. 

 The Clayton- Bui wcr treaty may be usefully employed 

 to call to recollection America's former and wiser 

 frame of mind. 



Under date of November 19th, Secretary 

 Blaine addressed a communication to Minister 

 Lowell, in which ho proposed to the British 

 Government certain modifications of the ngroe- 

 ment of 1850, known as the Clayton-Bnhvcr 

 treaty. He argued that that convention was 

 made "under exceptional and extraordinary 

 conditions which have long since ceased to 

 exist conditions which at best were tempo- 

 rary in their nature, and which can never be 



reproduced." The interests of her Majesty's 

 Government, he urged, were insignificant, while 

 those of the United States were paramount, 

 and hud been greatly enhanced since the nego- 

 tiation of the treaty, on account of the devel- 

 opment of its possessions on the Pacific coast. 

 Moreover, the effect of the agreement was to 

 give Great Britain a virtual power of control. 

 k 'The insular position of the home Govern- 

 ment," he said, " with its extended colonial 

 possessions, requires the British Empire to 

 maintain a vast naval establishment which, in 

 our continental solidity, we do not need, and 

 in time of peace shall never create. If the 

 United States binds itself not to fortify on 

 land, it concedes that Great Britain, in the 

 possible case of a struggle for the control of 

 the canal, shall at the outset have an advan- 

 tage which would prove decisive, and which 

 could not be reversed, except by the expendi- 

 ture of treasure and force. The presumptive 

 intention of the treaty was to place the two 

 powers on a plane of perfect equality with re- 

 spect to the canal ; but in practice, as I have 

 indicated, this would prove utterly delusive, 

 and would, instead, surrender it, if not in form, 

 yet in effect, to the control of Great Britain. 

 The treaty binds the United States not to use 

 its military force in any precautionary meas- 

 ure, while it leaves the naval power of Great 

 Britain perfectly free and unrestrained, ready 

 at any moment of need to seize both ends of 

 the canal and render its military occupation on 

 land a matter entirely within the discretion 

 of her Majesty's Government. Tho military 

 power of the United States, as shown by the 

 recent civil war, is without limit, and, in any 

 conflict on the American Continent, altogether 

 irresistible. The Clayton-Bulwer treaty com- 

 mands this Government not to use a single 

 regiment of troops to protect its interest-* in 

 connection with the interoceanic canal, but to 

 surrender the transit to the guardianship and 

 control of the British navy. If no American 

 soldier is to be quartered on the Istlm: 

 protect the rights of his country in the inter- 

 oceanic canal, surely by the fair logic of neu- 

 trality no war-vessel of Great Britain should 

 be permitted to appear in the watx-rs that con- 

 trol either entrance to the canal." Ho pro- 

 ceeded to disclaim, in behalf of the United 

 States Government, any disposition to adopt 

 an aggressive policy, hut maintained that its 

 interests required that it should control tho 

 shortest and most convenient nmto of com- 

 munication by wat<?r between the two >li.rcs 

 of its territorial domain, citing the policy <>f 

 Great Britain in regard to the route to India 

 by way of the Mediterranean and lied Seas 

 through the Suez Canal, as furnishing a par- 

 allel to that proposed by tho United State-. 



Groat Britain (ho continued) iipproojaton tho ad- 

 vantage, and iH-rhnp-* the mxvuxity, <>f maintainlnjr, 

 nt the oort of large military and naval MtablUmMfitt, 

 the interior mid neun *t'ruti' M India, while nnv 

 nation with hostile intent is comix-lied to take tho 

 longer route and travel many thousand additional 



