Rensselaer Journal, Volume 10, Number 41, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 21 March 1901 — THE CANAL TREATY [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

THE CANAL TREATY

Although England-, has refused our proposals for a Nicaragua canal, the problem in hand is visibly nearing a solution. For this progress in a great cause the American people are indebted to the United States Senate, which, by its action on the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, has made clear to the world the following vital points: 1. That the American people will never consent to the abrogation of the Monroe doctrine by admitting the European concert to partnership In a purely American enterprise. 2. That the American people understand the canal will be in fact—whatever the territorial sovereignty of its shores—a part of their coast line and must be treated as such. 3. That the American people, while perfectly willing to guarantee to all nations equal commercial privileges with their own in peace, will never consent to a neutralization of the canal that will open it to their enemy in war. 4. That the American people will not accept England as a partner in the control of the canal. The first and third of these four points the Senate made clear by striking out Mr. Hay’s invitation to the European concert to join in the guaranties of neutrality. The second and third it emphasised by the Davis amendment. The fourth it declared in

the proposal that this compact supersede the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. England, so far as can be learned, rejects our proposals on the following grounds: 1. That as "trustee for all maritime nations” she cannot consent to a canal in whose neutralization all nations do not join. This is, to speak plainly, simply a pretense and may be dismissed as such. 2. That the Davis amendment is objectionable because it gives us the right to control the canal completely. As the canal will be essentially a part of our coast line we must so control it. 3. That in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty England surrendered for a certain consideration “vested rights” in Central America, and that our proposals destroy the consideration without restoring the rights surrendered in exchange therefor. In this last is plainly'the gist of the whole matter. England most likely hopes that the United States will offer concessions of American soil in Alaska or elsewhere in exchange for her "rights” in Central America. In a word, England falls back upon the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, sits down on the canal route, and demands to be bought off. As the Clayton-Bulwer treaty is still in force the United States is thus confronted with the alternative of forc-

ing England off or buying her off. As we are not ready to risk a war with England, our obvious policy is, while steadily preparing for the other alternative, to try to buy England off. No surrender of the Monroe doctrine, no territorial concessions in Alaska, however, can wisely be included in our offer. The Senate has greatly assisted Mr. Hay’s future negotiations by making it plain to all the world that the American people will have an American canal or none. The belief that the American people would ever abdicate their supremacy in this hemisphere must now have been dispelled from the European mind. To have that belief dispelled is an advantage which Mr. Hay should exploit promptly. In the meantime an impression is given out from Sandow to the effect that Britain’s chief objection to the canal comes from the fact that vast financial resources in our transcontinental railways (chiefly held in England) would be greatly depressed by the assurance of a canal. Or to be brief England is not aiming at the American canal but Is merely carrying out the time-honored Britain policy of protecting British Investors by seeking to delay a program which when assured will injure the market value of their holding.—lnterOcean.