The Nation's Honor.

New York Times 100 years ago today, August 21, 1912:
How It Is Involved in the Canal Question — President's Duty Clear.
    In 1850 a convention was concluded between the United States and Great Britain relating to a ship canal connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. That convention was called the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and it continued in force until it was superseded by the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, which was concluded in 1901.
    In the preamble of this latter treaty, which was entered into by Great Britain for the purpose of removing "any objection which may arise out of the convention of the 19th April, 1850, commonly called the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, to the construction of such canal under the auspices of the Government of the United States," it is expressly stipulated that such amendment of the terms of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty shall be made "without impairing the 'general principle' of neutralization established in Article VIII. of that convention" — the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.
    That treaty provided that neither the Government of the United States nor of Great Britain should ever obtain or maintain for itself any exclusive control over such ship canal, that they would protect it, jointly, "from interruption, seizure, or unjust confiscation, and guarantee its neutrality, so that the said canal may forever be open and free," and in Article VIII. declared that the canal should "be open on like terms to the citizens and subjects of every other State."
    "For about one hundred years," as the Hon. J. Warren Keifer of Ohio asserted in one of his speeches in Congress last year, discussing the existing status, "our Government has been wisely committed to the policy of the neutralization of any canal across the Isthmus of Panama."

***

    The Clayton-Bulwer treaty was superseded by the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, which was concluded in 1901. Section 1 of Article III. of this treaty reads thus:
    1. The canal shall be free and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of all nations observing these rules (the rules governing the free navigation of the Suez Canal) on terms of entire equality, so that there shall be no discrimination against any such nation or its citizens or subjects in respect of the conditions or charges of traffic or otherwise. Such conditions and charges of traffic shall be just and equitable.
    Article IV. of the treaty reads as follows:
    It is agreed that no change of territorial sovereignty or of the international relations of the country or countries traversed by the before-mentioned canal (the Panama Canal) shall affect the general principle of neutralization or the obligation of the high contracting parties under the present treaty.

***

    In 1900 a treaty was agreed to by the United States Senate, but not until it had been amended in two particulars — that it should supersede the Clayton-Bulwer treaty and should leave the United States free to apply such measures as it might "find it necessary to take for securing by its own forces the defense of the United States and the maintenance of public order."
    Great Britain refused to ratify the treaty as thus amended "for the expressed reasons," as Mr. Keifer explained, "that it was not intended to supersede the Clayton-Bulwer treaty without a freer recognition of the principle of neutralization contained in it being included in a new treaty," and because the amendments made by the United States Senate "might lead to misunderstandings and a possible violation of the 'general principle of neutrality.' "
    Mr. Hay, the Plenipotentiary of the United States in the making of the treaty, asseverated, pending the negotiations regarding the new treaty, that the preamble of the new treaty retained the declaration of the general principle of neutralization established in Article VIII. of the
    Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and that "to reiterate this in still stronger language in a separate article and to give to Article VIII. of the Clayton-Bulwer Convention what seemed a wider application than it originally had would be unnecessary."
    Relying upon the assurance by the American Plenipotentiary that "the general principle of neutralization" was amply guarded in the new treaty, and having faith in the good intentions and integrity of the United States, Great Britain agreed to the treaty as it stands. *** In transmitting the treaty to the Senate for ratification, President Roosevelt said that the treaty was made "to facilitate the construction of a ship canal to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans" "without impairing the general principle of neutralization established in Article VIII." of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty.
    The President further declared in his letter of transmission that the treaty had been entered into and concluded to preserve the "general principle of neutralization embodied as the settled policy of the United States Government in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty more than fifty years before."
    In order that this may be more fully understood it may be well to quote the opening sentence of Article VIII., declaring that the United States and Great Britain, "having not only desired, in entering into this convention, to accomplish a particular object, but also to establish a general principle, they hereby agree to extend their protection, by treaty stipulations, to any other practicable, communications, whether by canals or railways, across the Isthmus * * *; and that the same canals or railways, being open to the citizens and subjects of the United States and Great Britain on equal terms, shall also be open on like terms to the citizens and subjects of every other state which is willing to grant thereto such protection as the United States and Great Britain afford."

***

    The purpose of the United States in entering upon the construction of the Panama Canal was perfectly plain. The canal was to be a great ocean highway for the commerce of the world, and upon equal terms to all nations. Its neutrality was assured by both the signatory powers malting the Hay-Pauncefote treaty.
    There can be no misunderstanding upon this point. The fact that the treaty of the United States with Colombia was violated by the United States when the Canal Zone was alienated from that friendly republic by force or fraud does not change the relation of the United States in its treaty obligations to Great Britain. This fact is made perfectly clear in Article III. of the Hay-Pauncefote treaty, which declares that "no change of territorial sovereignty or of the international relations of the country or countries traversed by the before-mentioned canal shall affect the general principle of neutralization or the obligation of the high contracting parties under the present treaty."

***

The disposition of Congress to impose conditions tip.on the free use of the canal which would in large measure defeat the very object for which it is being constructed, the determination of demagogues to turn the canal to factional account, to engage in special legislation against selected interests, to scotch the wheels of trade for the attainment of political ends, to compromise the National honor with the object of securing a partisan triumph, is not less disgraceful because it accords with "the general principle" of present-day Americanism.

* * *

    An English writer has said that the United States is "the graveyard of treaties," and his reflection upon our National honor and integrity is about to be verified in the management of the Panama Canal.
    The duty of President, Taft is clear, whatever the failure of Congress to rightly appraise the value of keeping faith with the rest of the world.
            J. C. H.